Petitioners challenged the selection of retail outlet applicants alleging forged land documents and backdated permissions. The Court upheld the applicants' selection noting guidelines allow late consent and typos explaining the register mark were not significant.
Petition dismissed, selection of respondents upheld, stay application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2026/2020
----Petitioners
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. KR Saharan |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. CR Choudhary | ||
| For Respondent(s) | : | Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for |
| Mr. SandeepShah,AAG |
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/01/2022
(2 of 3)
[CW-2026/2020]
(3 of 3)
[CW-2026/2020]
(DINESH MEHTA),J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in furnishing consent form of co-sharer and alleged backdating in the register justify quashing the selection of retail outlet applicants.
Whether the Corporation's guidelines permit late submission of co-sharer consent forms.
Satpal Godara
Devender Kumar
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Udit Rathore
Meenu Luna
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
