Dismissed¶¶25

Manish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2025WPC/697/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Retail outlet allotment - BPCL advertisement 14.12.2018 for location KM Stone 18-20 on SH-04, District Jashpur - Draw of Lot 18.06.2019 selecting Respondent No.3 - Petitioner's complaint 09.07.2019 that allotted land not on SH-04 rejected by order 24.01.2020 - PWD letter 03.12.2019 confirming location was SH-04 till 31.12.2018, now SH-17 - State notification 02.05.2019 under Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003 held to be mere proposal - LOI 31.01.2020 upheld - writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; petition dismissed with no order as to cost(s). ¶¶25

Manish Kumar Yadav Vs Union of India — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; petition dismissed with no order as to cost(s).

¶¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 24.01.2020 of Respondent No.2 rejecting the Petitioner's complaint dated 09.07.2019 (that the land held by Respondent No.3 is not situated on State Highway No.4) and the consequent issuance of LOI in favour of Respondent No.3 on 31.01.2020 suffer from illegality warranting quashment.

¶¶15

Court's answer

The notification issued by the State Government on 2nd May, 2019 (under the Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003) showing the land held by Respondent No.3 covered in Sr. No.17 ('Kunkuri-Batauli-Bageecha-Raikera-Lavakera-KothaLailunga-Gharghoda-Chhaal Road') was only a proposal, and no reliance could be placed upon it.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.2 - Territory Manager (Retail) committed no illegality in rejecting the Petitioner's complaint by the impugned order dated 24.01.2020 and in the consequent issuance of LOI in favour of Respondent No.3 on 31.01.2020; therefore, no interference in the petition was called for.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPC No. 697 of 2020, decided 07.03.2025) by Manish Kumar Yadav against the order dated 24.01.2020 of the Territory Manager (Retail), BPCL, rejecting his complaint dated 09.07.2019 that the land held by Respondent No.3 (Anil Kumar Gupta) was not situated on State Highway No.4, and the consequent LOI dated 31.01.2020 issued to Respondent No.3. Pursuant to BPCL's advertisement dated 14.12.2018 for a retail outlet between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No.20 on SH-04, District Jashpur, a Draw of Lot held on 18.06.2019 selected Respondent No.3. On verification, the Executive Engineer, PWD informed by letter dated 03.12.2019 that till 31.12.2018 (when the advertisement was issued) the location was SH-04, presently named SH-17. The State Government notification dated 2nd May, 2019 under the Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003, relied on by the Petitioner, was held to be only a proposal on which no reliance could be placed. Held: Respondent No.2 committed no illegality; petition dismissed, no order as to cost(s).

¶1

¶2

SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.07 19:15:33 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:11548

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 697 of 2020

¶7

Manish Kumar Yadav S/o Maheshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Block Colony Main Road Lailunga, Police Station And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Union of India Through Its Secretary, Department of Ministry of Petroleum And Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 (India).

¶11

2 - Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 46, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Bhawan, Nagar Ghari Chowk, Raipur, Police Station Golbazar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Premchand Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Near High School Kotba, Police Station Kotba, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

	-- Respondents
_____________________ For Petitioners	______________________________________ : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Shri Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate.
For UOI/Respondent No.1	: Shri Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.K. Mishra D.S.G.
For Respondent No.2 For Respondent No.3 -------------------------------------- Single Bench : Ho	: Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate : Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate ------------------------------------------------------------ n'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board

¶14

07.03.2025

¶15

1. By virtue of this petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), whereby, his complaint made on 09.07.2019 (Annexure-P-5), was rejected by Respondent No.2-

¶16

¶17

Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and, consequent upon issuance of LOI in favour of Respondent No.3- Anil Kumar Gupta, on 31.01.2020 (Annexure R-3/1).

¶18

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.2- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on 14.12.2018, for allotment of retail outlet for the location between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No. 20 on State Highway No.4 (SH-04) of District Jashpur under the ‘Regular Marketing Plan’ in ‘Open Category’ and, applications were received in Group-1 category, from the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 and thereafter, a Draw Of Lot (DOL) for the said location was held on 18.06.2019, wherein, the Respondent No.3 - Anil Kumar Gupta, was selected in online draw and intimation was sent to him to submit Initial Security Deposit (ISD). It appears further that after completion of due formalities in this regard, the alleged LOI (Annexure R-3/1) was issued in favour of Respondent No.3- Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020, but, before that a complaint was made by the Petitioner on 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) before the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, as the land held by Respondent No.3 is not situated of State Highway No.4.

¶19

3. In order to ascertain the alleged fact, the Territory Manager (BPCL) has sought the information from the office of the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, who vide its letter dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure R-2/1), informed that till 31.12.2018, the location between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No.20 is SH-04 and named presently as SH-17. It, thus, appears based upon the said information (R-2/1)

¶20

¶21

furnished by the office of the Executive Engineer P.W.D., Division Pathhalgaon, District Jashpur, that the said location till 31.12.2018 is SH-04, i.e. when the alleged advertisement was issued on 14.12.2018 and, therefore, the grievance as was raised by the Petitioner, vide his alleged complaint (Annexure P-5) dated 09.07.2019 was rejected vide order impugned dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) and only after the redressal of his grievance by the Competent Authority, the LOI (Annexure R-3/1) has been issued in favour of Respondent No. 3- Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020.

¶22

4. Although, the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, a notification that was issued by the State Government on 2^nd May, 2019, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (iii) of the Clause 3, Chapter-II of the Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003 (No.12 of 2003), showing the alleged land held by Respondent No.3 covered in Sr. No.17, i.e. “Kunkuri-Batauli-Bageecha-Raikera-Lavakera-KothaLailunga-Gharghoda-Chhaal Road”, but, a bare perusal of it, would, however, show that it was only a proposal that was made by the State Government in this regard. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it.

¶23

5. In view of the aforesaid background, the Respondent No.2- Territory Manager (Retail) has not committed any illegality in rejecting the alleged complaint raised by the Petitioner vide order impugned dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) and, consequent upon the issuance of LOI (Annexure R-3/1) in favour of the Respondent No.3 -Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020, so as to call of any interference in this petition.

¶24

¶25

6. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is, dismissed.

¶26

No order as to cost(s).

¶27

Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

¶28

sunita

Manish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pitamber Prasad Singhroul Vs State of Chhattisgarh

K.p.dewangan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lalaram Kori Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Chain Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ismail Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dudhawa Bandh Ka Prabhavit Kishan Majdoor Kalyan Samiti, Aamgaon Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Another