Manendra Kumar Gangber Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

¶1

1 / 7

CGHC010165062021

2026:CGHC:27856

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 2867 of 2021

¶7

Manendra Kumar Gangber S/o Shri Rumlal Gangber Aged About 38 Years R/o Gram And Post Belargaon, Tehsil Nagari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 493778, District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Divisional Retail Sales Head Raipur Division Office Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Vip Road, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492006., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - General Manager (Retail Sales) Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhawan, 16 Jail Road, Arera Hills, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) 462011., District : Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

¶12

3 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Having Its Registered Office At Indian Oil Bhawan, G - 9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400051., District : Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

Digitally
signed by
PRAVEEN
KUMAR
SINHA
Date:
2026.07.09
10:32:27
+0530

¶15

2 / 7

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate with Ms. Shruti Jha, Advocate

¶17

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

06/07/2026

¶20

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶21

i. To kindly quash the impugned order dated 15/06/2021 annexed as Annexure P/01, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

¶22

ii. To kindly direct the respondent no.1 (Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager Raipur Division Office) to award dealership of the petrol pump in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶23

iii. To kindly make any other order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the costs to the petitioner.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner pursuant to advertisement issued by the respondents/Indian Oil Corporation for appointment of Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership vide notification/advertisement dated 14.12.2018 had submitted an application for his appointment as Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership for the location mentioned at Sr. No.1140 of the advertisement i.e. “On Left Hand Side (LHS) within 1 km from Prathmik Swasthya Kendra at Belargaon towards Birgudi while going Nawagaon Tehsil Nagri”. After filing of this application and

¶25

3 / 7

¶26

completion of proceedings, respondent authority has got the land of the petitioner inspected though Land Evaluation Committee (hereinafter referred to as “LEC”). LEC had submitted its report in favour of petitioner and accordingly the Letter of Intent (in short “LOI”) was issued in favour of petitioner. It is contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that upon receipt of LOI, petitioner had made huge investment in the process of installment of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership. During the process of installation, respondents have issued a show cause notice to petitioner mentioning that petitioner is not fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in advertisement of the dimensions of land of 20 metre wide and 20 metre deep. Part of land of petitioner is not abutting the road boundaries, as in front of his land some other’s land is also situated. Petitioner had submitted reply accepting the correct fact that in some of land owned by petitioner in between the road, small patch of land is owned by some other person and they have not made the self-declaration that they are having in possession of 20 metre vide land abutting the road. As petitioner has made huge investment for erection of building to commence petrol pump (retail outlet dealership) pursuant to report of LEC and therefore his LOI may not be cancelled. Respondent authority without considering the facts and circumstances of case cancelled the LOI dated 21.04.2020 (Annexure P-8) issued in favour of petitioner. The act of respondents is highly arbitrary and therefore order of cancellation of LOI be set aside.

¶27

4 / 7

¶28

In alternative, he also submits that if the Court is not finding it appropriate to set aside the order of cancellation of LOI in the facts of case, then, respondents be directed to return back the amount of Rs.30,000/- towards security deposit and Rs.5,00,000/- towards non-refundable fee deposited by the petitioner.

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner after coming across the advertisement had submitted his application offering the land to be made with requirements as published in the advertisement. He contended that there is clear mentioned of dimensions of the land in the advertisement itself of 20 metre wide and 20 metre deep abutting the road meaning thereby that petitioner has to be his own ownership land or in possession of area of dimensions of land of lease also but 20 mere wide has to be abutting the road. He submits that in the report prepared by LEC, petitioner has put-forth his signature wherein conditions of brochure is also extracted as Sr. No. 1 to 4 in which there is clear mentioned that there is no other land including government land between Right of Way (ROW) and offered plot. Petitioner has not submitted the correct fact with regard to status of land. Admittedly, the petitioner is not meeting the conditions as required for the land forming part of brochure at clause No.4 (v) (l) which is specific requirement of the land offered by any of the applicant. Petitioner is not eligible for allotment of retail outlet dealership of petrol pump as his land is not meeting out minimum requirement under the conditions mentioned in Brochure

¶30

5 / 7

¶31

as also advertisement. Hence, no error has been committed by respondent authority in cancelling LOI issued in favour of petitioner.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶33

Advertisement is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Respondent- Indian Oil Corporation along with advertisement have enclosed list of locations for which advertisement was issued which also includes location at Sr. No.1140 i.e. “On Left Hand Side (LHS) within 1 km from Prathmik Swasthya Kendra at Belargaon towards Birgudi while going Nawagaon Tehsil Nagri.

¶34

In the advertisement, there is specific mention of the minimum dimension [in montage of Site (in M) ] which is mentioned as 20 x 20 metres i.e. 400 sq.mtr. Clause-4 of the Brochure under the heading“Eligibility Criteria for Individual Applicants - Proprietorship /Partnership talks of land (applicable to all categories). Under Clause 4 (v) (l)) of the Brochure there is specific mention that it should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that as on date of application :- (1) It should be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that as on date of application :- (i) Offered land is of required dimension and abutting the Road boundary, after leaving Right of Way (ROW) line of the road; (ii) The offered land is also not notified for acquisition; (iii) Land owner is in Possession of the land from the beginning / edge of ROW line and (iv) There is no other land including Govt. land between ROW and offered plot.

¶35

6 / 7

¶36

Under the note appended to Clause 4 (v) (l) there is specific mention that- “In case it is found at later stage that the offered plot is not meeting any of the above conditions then in such case the offered land would be rejected and candidate will be given opportunity along with applicants under Group 3 by intimation through SMS/e-mail.

¶37

The petitioner after issuance of show cause notice has not disputed the fact that he does not meet conditions as enumerated under Clause -4 (v) (l) of the Brochure, nor offered land nor in the petition there is specific pleading denying the allegation made in the show cause notice. Before this Court also, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in part of his land in between road, land of some other person is situated. He whoever only said that land was evaluated by LEC of respondents.

¶38

Be that as it may petitioner has submitted application with open eyes based on the details of requirements of land as mentioned/published in the advertisement of 20 x 20 metre which admittedly the petitioner is not meeting out. Respondents have mentioned guidelines for selection of dealers and one of condition is with regard to dimensions of land abutting the road.

¶39

In the aforementioned facts of the case when admittedly petitioner is not meeting out minimum requirement of the land as is forming part of advertisement and also guidelines for selection of dealership, in the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or arbitrariness on the part of respondents in cancelling LOI issued in

¶40

7 / 7

¶41

favour of petitioner. Claim/relief of petitioner to that extent is rejected.

¶42

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his second submission may be considered for refund of amount of Rs.30,000/- deposited towards security deposit and Rs.5 lakh towards non-refundable deposit as per Clause 13 of the Brochure.

¶43

Upon putting a query to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether petitioner has submitted any representation before respondent authority for refund of said amount or not, he submits that no such document is available in record.

¶44

In the aforementioned facts of case, I find it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation seeking refund of non-refundable amount of Rs.5 lakh before respondent authority and in the event any such representation is submitted by the petitioner, concerned authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of representation.

¶45

With the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶46

Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶47

Praveen

Manendra Kumar Gangber v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manendra Kumar Gangber v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Son Sai Vs Smt. Chandan Sanjay Tripathi

Dayal Kumar Udasi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Urmila Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Badri Prasad Vs Government of India

Mohammad Khaliq Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kalavati Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh