Dismissed¶28

Nipun Yadav and Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Himachal Pradesh HC4 Jul 2025CWP/11252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of provisionally selected candidature for petrol pump / retail outlet dealership (Indian Oil Corporation, Mohal Jispa, Manali-Leh Highway, Lahaul & Spiti) for non-submission of requisite documents; draw of lots; group-wise advertisement; Scheduled Tribe category; documents furnished only after rejection (07.03.2024); rejection attributed to applicants' own omission; writ petition dismissed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh (CWP No.11252 of 2024, decided 04.07.2025, Justice Ajay Mohan Goel). No statutes or precedent cases cited.

What did the court decide?

It was not in dispute that the petitioners were provisionally selected under Group-1 and that the documents sought by the respondents were never provided by them, as admitted by the petitioners and evident from Annexure P-6. ¶24

Nipun Yadav and Another Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the e-mail communication dated 29.02.2024 cancelling the petitioners' candidature was illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶24

Ratio / Principle

As on the date when the candidature was rejected, the complete documents demanded by the Corporation had not been provided; the petitioners' endeavour to furnish them came only on 07.03.2024, after the impugned communication.

¶27

Key takeaways

Since the rejection of the candidature was on account of omissions committed by the petitioners themselves, for which the respondent-Corporation cannot be faulted, especially as other applicants were in line in Group-2 and Group-3, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Scheduled Tribe candidates provisionally selected in the draw of lots for an Indian Oil Corporation retail outlet dealership at Mohal Jispa (Manali-Leh Highway, Lahaul & Spiti) under Group-1 challenged, by way of writ petition, the cancellation of their candidature by e-mail dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure P-7) effected on the ground that the requisite documents were not submitted. Although the petitioners had earlier explained (e-mail dated 05.01.2024, Annexure P-6) that technical issues prevented uploading of some documents, the documents were actually furnished only on 07.03.2024, i.e. after the impugned communication. Held: it was not disputed that the documents sought were never provided by the due date, and as on the date of rejection the complete documents demanded remained unprovided; the rejection thus flowed from the petitioners' own omissions, for which the respondent-Corporation could not be faulted, particularly since other applicants were in line in Groups 2 and 3. Finding no merit in the petition, the Court dismissed it, with pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of. (Single Judge: Justice Ajay Mohan Goel.)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.11252 of 2024 Decided on 04^th July, 2025

¶3

Nipun Yadav and another

¶4

…Petitioners Versus …Respondents

¶5

Indian Oil Corporation limited and another

¶6

Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?

¶8

For the petitioners: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate.

¶9

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶10

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter

¶11

alia , prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶12

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the e-mail communication dated 29.02.2024 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners have been cancelled illegally and arbitrarily without following due process of law.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for the allotment of regular/retail dealership at Mohal Jispa, Manali-Leh Highway, Tehsil Lahaul, District Lahaul and Spiti, H.P.”

¶14

¶15

The facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent-Corporation for setting up of a petrol pump at Jispa, Manali-Leh, Highway, Tehsil Lahaul, District Lahaul and Spiti, H.P., applied for allotment of petrol pump. Alongwith the petitioners, 10 other applicants also applied for the allotment of petrol pump. Though the copy of the advertisement, to which, the petitioners responded, has not been appended either with the writ petition or with the reply, however, the Court stands informed that there were three Groups, stipulated in the advertisement and the petitioners, who belong to Scheduled Tribes Category, applied under Group-1. Under Group-2, also one candidate had applied and under Group-3, nine candidates

¶16

applied.

¶17

Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioners is that though, initially, in terms of Annexure P-4, the petitioners were informed that in the draw of lots for allotment of retail outlet dealership for the location Mohal Jispa, they stood provisionally selected, but later on, their candidature was cancelled in terms of Annexure P-7, dated 29.02.2024, on the ground that the requisite

¶18

¶19

documents, which they were called upon to submit, were not submitted by them.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the provisional selection of the petitioners, when they received the communication from the respondent-Corporation to submit the documents required by them, they were not able to upload some of the documents due to technical issues. Yet, despite this, their candidature was rejected by the respondents, which act of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the Oil Corporation submitted that the provisional selection of the petitioners in terms of Annexure P-4 was only a preliminary intimation towards the provisional selection of the petitioners for retail outlet dealership, however, the award thereof was subject to the compliance of terms and conditions of the Corporation in this regard. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of the documents annexed with the reply, it was apparent and evident that despite opportunities granted to the petitioners to furnish information as was required by the Corporation, as they failed to do so, the Corporation had no option or choice but to

¶21

¶22

cancel the candidature of the petitioners, which was rightly done vide communication dated 29.02.2024, as mandatory documents required to be submitted by the petitioners were not submitted.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings.

¶24

It is not in dispute that the petitioners were selected under Group-1 provisionally for the allotment of the retail outlet. It is also not in dispute that the documents which were sought from the petitioners by the respondents were not provided to the respondents by the petitioners. In fact, this is admitted by the petitioners and it is also apparent and evident from Annexure P-6 appended with the writ petition, in terms whereof, vide e-mail dated 05.01.2024, reasons stand spelled out by the petitioners why documents could not be made available by the petitioners to the Corporation by the due date.

¶25

In terms of the impugned order, the candidature of the petitioners stands rejected on the ground that the documents required were not provided by the petitioners to the respondents within time.

¶26

¶27

In terms of the annexures, which have been appended with the writ petition, it is evident that an endeavor was made by the petitioners to provide documents to the respondents on 07.03.2024 i.e. after the issuance of the impugned communication. This is evident from Annexure P-8, which demonstrates the fact that as on the date when the candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the Corporation, complete documents, as were demanded by the Corporation, were not provided by the petitioners to the Corporation.

¶28

Therefore, in the light of above discussion, as the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners was on account of the omissions, which were committed by the petitioners, for which the respondent-Corporation cannot be faulted with, more so, as there were other applicants in line, may be in Group-2 and Group-3, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶29

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 04, 2025 (Vinod)

Nipun Yadav and Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nipun Yadav and Another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit and Others Vs State of Hp and Another

Ghanshyam Guleria Vs State of Hp and Others

The Commissioner Cum Chief Executive Officer Vs Manoj Kumar

Narender Sharma and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kritika Vs Hpu and Others

Neerja Sharma Vs Rajesh Kotecha and Another