IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.24190 of 2018

======================================================

Rakesh Kumar Son of Sri Ram Lal Ram Resident of Village Alampur, P.O.

Alampur Via Takia Bazar, Ward No. 05, Panchayat Alampur P.S. Sheosagar

District- Rohtas PIN code 821113 presently residing at Town and P.S.

Sasaram, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The Indian Oil Corporation Having its Registered Office at, G-9, Ali Yavar

Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051.

2.The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd Through its General Manager Marketing

(LPG Sales) 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chauk

Fraser Road, Patna- 800001.

3.The Deputy General Manager (LPG-S) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,. Indane

Area Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 800001.

4.The Assistant Manager (LPG-OPS) Patna BP (Field Verification

Committee), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,. Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road,

Patna.

5.The Assistant Manager Indian Oil Corporation Ltd,. Patna Bottling Plant, at

and P.O.- Gidha, District- Bhojpur PIN 802314.

6.Sri Arun Kumar Son of Sudama Singh Resident of Alampur, P.S.- Sheosagar,

District- Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s: M/s Amit Kumar Malik,

Shiw Kumar Prabhakar, Advocates

For the Respondent/s: Mr. Amlesh Kumar Varma, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 03-07-2026

1. The petitioner has filed the instant

application for the following relief(s):

“i. For issuance of an appropriate Writ /

order for setting aside the letter bearing

Ref.No.PAT/LPG/Alampur dt. 23.11.2018

issued by the Dy. General Manager

(LPG-S) Indane Area Office, Patna,

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

2/19

whereby the allotment of the

distributorship of LPG in village Alampur

in Rohtas District vide Ref. No.

IOC0231213415072017 dt.31.1.2018 to

the petitioner has been cancelled and

application fees of Rs. 40000/- has been

forfeited;

ii. For setting aside the decision to draw

fresh lottery for the distributorship at

Alampur along with other places on

28.11.2018 as published in the

newspaper dt. 25.11.2018;

iii. For setting aside the selection for

Indane LPG distributorship to another

person namely one Arun Kumar son of

Sudama Singh at Alampur in place of

the petitioner vide letter of selection dt

30.11.18

iv. For issuance of an appropriate Writ /

order for stay of the grant of

distributorship at Alampur to any other

person than the petitioner during the

pendency of the present petition;

v. For directing the Respondents to

confirm the allotment of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

3/19

distributorship to the petitioner vide

letter dt. 31.1.2018 and grant the

dealership of Indane LPG to the

petitioner at village Alampur;

vi. For grant of any other relief to which

the petitioner may be entitled to in law.”

2. The brief facts culled out of the Writ

petition is that pursuant to the advertisement

dated 17/18.06.2017 issued by the Indian Oil

Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the

Corporation") for appointment of LPG Distributors,

the petitioner submitted his online application on

15.07.2017, for grant of LPG distributorship at

Alampur under Sheosagar Police Station in the

district of Rohtas. His application was

acknowledged under Reference No.

IOC0231213415072017.

3. It is submitted that upon scrutiny of the

applications and draw of lots, the petitioner was

declared successful and was issued a Letter of

Selection dated 31.01.2018, requiring him to

deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- and to submit the

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

4/19

requisite documents for Field Verification of

Credentials (for short "FVC"). It is submitted that

the petitioner duly deposited the prescribed

amount on 05.02.2018 and furnished all the

documents as required under the Unified

Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors.

4. The Learned counsel submits that during

the course of field verification, the Corporation,

vide letter dated 27.03.2018, informed the

petitioner that the lease deed offered for the

showroom and godown had been executed after

the last date prescribed for submission of

applications and, therefore, did not satisfy the

eligibility criteria. The petitioner was, however,

granted an opportunity to furnish an alternate

parcel of land within seven days. Availing of the

said opportunity, the petitioner offered alternate

land bearing Khata No. 477, Khesra No. 341,

measuring 97 decimals, belonging to his father,

and submitted all supporting documents including

affidavits executed by his father, genealogical

records, no-objection affidavits of the co-sharers,

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

5/19

Land Possession Certificate (for short "LPC"),

revenue receipts and other relevant documents.

5. It is contended that the only issue which

arose during verification pertained to the variation

in the name of the petitioner's father. According to

the petitioner, after the death of his mother's first

husband, namely Naresh Dusadh, she married his

younger brother Suresh Ram, and consequently his

father came to be known by different names,

namely Ranglal Dusadh, Ram Lal Ram and Ranglal

Paswan. The petitioner asserts that the said

variation was fully explained through affidavits,

genealogical table and other documentary

evidence submitted before the Corporation. It is

further submitted that the officials of the Field

Verification Committee duly verified the documents

so produced.

6. The Learned counsel further submits

that the Corporation repeatedly sought clarification

from the Circle Officer, Sheosagar, regarding the

ownership of the land and the entries contained in

Register-II, the Land Possession Certificate and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

6/19

revenue records. The Circle Officer, by

communications dated 30.06.2018, 24.08.2018

and 25.10.2018, clarified that the discrepancies

noticed in the earlier revenue records were merely

clerical in nature and certified that the land stood

recorded in the names of Ranglal and Suresh. It is

also submitted that the concerned Revenue Clerk

specifically reported that omission of one of the co-

sharers from the earlier revenue receipt had

occurred due to clerical inadvertence and certified

the correctness of both the sets of revenue

records.

7. It is the specific submission of the

Learned counsel that in terms of Appendix-4 of the

Unified Guidelines, all the joint owners of the land

had duly executed the prescribed affidavits in

support of the petitioner's candidature and,

therefore, there remained no legal infirmity in the

land offered by the petitioner.

8. It is contended that despite repeated

clarifications furnished by the competent revenue

authorities, the Corporation adopted a hyper-

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

7/19

technical approach by ignoring the official records

and persisted with unwarranted objections

regarding the identity of the landowner. According

to the petitioner, the concerned Assistant Manager

unnecessarily delayed the matter, compelling the

petitioner to submit a representation before the

General Manager (LPG), Bihar requesting personal

consideration of his grievance.

9. The Learned counsel submits that

without considering the aforesaid representation

and without affording the petitioner any effective

opportunity of hearing, the Corporation abruptly

cancelled his candidature vide letter dated

23.11.2018, forfeited the security deposit of

Rs.40,000/- and concluded that the petitioner had

failed to establish his eligibility in respect of the

alternate land offered by him. It is argued that

once the competent revenue authorities had

repeatedly authenticated the ownership and

possession of the land and had explained the

discrepancies in the revenue records, the

Corporation was not justified in discarding such

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

8/19

official communications and rejecting the

candidature merely on surmises and conjectures.

10. It is further submitted that immediately

after cancelling the petitioner's candidature, the

Corporation published a fresh notification in the

newspaper 'Hindustan' dated 25.11.2018 fixing

28.11.2018 for a fresh draw of lots for the same

location and, with unusual haste, proceeded to

select another candidate, namely Arun Kumar

(respondent No. 6), vide letter dated 30.11.2018.

According to the Learned counsel, the entire

exercise was undertaken in undue haste, thereby

depriving the petitioner of an effective opportunity

to seek redressal of his grievance. It is, therefore,

contended that the impugned order dated

23.11.2018 cancelling the petitioner's candidature,

forfeiting the security deposit and proceeding with

a fresh selection process is arbitrary,

unreasonable, violative of the principles of natural

justice and liable to be quashed, with a

consequential direction upon the Corporation to

restore the petitioner's selection and grant the LPG

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

9/19

distributorship in accordance with law.

11. A detailed counter affidavit was filed

on behalf of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation

Limited. The Learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent–Indian Oil Corporation Limited

referring to the counter affidavit, opposed the Writ

petition and submitted that the impugned action of

the Corporation is strictly in accordance with the

Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors,

2017 and does not suffer from any illegality,

arbitrariness or procedural infirmity warranting

interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

12. It is submitted that pursuant to the

advertisement, the petitioner had applied for LPG

distributorship at Alampur and, upon being

declared successful in the draw of lots, was issued

a Letter of Selection dated 31.01.2018, which was

expressly made subject to successful Field

Verification of Credentials. During verification, it

was found that the lease deed initially offered by

the petitioner for the showroom and godown had

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

10/19

been executed on 03.02.2018, i.e., after the last

date prescribed for submission of the application.

Since the land did not satisfy the eligibility criteria

under the Guidelines, the Corporation, by way of

abundant fairness, afforded the petitioner an

opportunity to furnish alternate land which

satisfied the eligibility conditions as on the cut-off

date.

13. The Learned counsel submits that the

alternate land offered by the petitioner, bearing

Khata No. 477, Khesra No. 341, also failed to

satisfy the eligibility criteria. According to the Land

Possession Certificate dated 27.03.2018 and the

corresponding revenue receipt, the raiyat of the

land was one Shri Ranglal Dusadh, whereas in the

petitioner's application form, Aadhaar Card, PAN

Card, Secondary School Certificate, caste

certificate and other identity documents, the name

of his father was consistently recorded as Ram Lal

Ram. Although the petitioner sought to explain the

discrepancy by producing affidavits and a

genealogical table stating that Ranglal Dusadh and

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

11/19

Ram Lal Ram were one and the same person, the

Corporation found that no reliable corroborative

evidence had been produced to substantiate such

claim.

14. It is further submitted that in order to

ascertain the correctness of the land records, the

Corporation repeatedly sought clarification from

the Circle Officer, Sheosagar. While the Circle

Officer initially confirmed the correctness of the

Land Possession Certificate issued in favour of Shri

Ranglal Dusadh, the petitioner subsequently

produced another Land Possession Certificate and

revenue records showing the same land jointly in

the names of Ranglal and Suresh. Since such

subsequent records disclosed an additional name

in respect of the very same land without any

disclosed mutation proceedings, the Corporation

sought further clarification from the Circle Officer.

The reply furnished by the Circle Officer, together

with the copy of Register-II, according to the

respondent, revealed inconsistencies, as the

Register-II reflected Shri Ranglal Dusadh alone as

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

12/19

the raiyat. Despite repeated communications

addressed to the Circle Officer and even to the

District Magistrate seeking clarification regarding

the variation in the revenue records, no

satisfactory explanation or corroborative

documentary evidence was forthcoming to

establish that Ranglal Dusadh and Ram Lal Ram

were the same person or that the alternate land

fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed under the

Guidelines.

15. The Learned counsel for the

respondents accordingly submits that the

petitioner failed to establish ownership or valid

entitlement over the alternate land in the manner

contemplated under the Unified Guidelines. Since

the petitioner could not furnish suitable land

satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions

despite being granted an additional opportunity,

the Field Verification Committee rightly rejected his

candidature on the grounds of non-fulfilment of the

eligibility criteria and furnishing incorrect

information. Consequently, the security deposit of

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

13/19

Rs.40,000/- stood forfeited in terms of Clause 26(b)

of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG

Distributors, June, 2017.

16. It is further submitted that after

cancellation of the petitioner's candidature, the

Corporation proceeded with a fresh draw of lots in

accordance with the Guidelines, wherein

respondent no. 6, Shri Arun Kumar, was selected.

Upon completion of all requisite formalities and

verification, a Letter of Intent and thereafter a

Letter of Appointment were issued in favour of Shri

Arun Kumar/ Respondent No. 6 The distributorship

has since been commissioned on 31.08.2019 and

an agreement dated 04.09.2019 has also been

executed between the Corporation and the

selected distributor. It is, therefore, submitted that

third-party rights have already accrued and no

interference is now warranted.

17. It is further submitted that in view of

the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the

Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this

Hon'ble Court, and it is fit to be dismissed.

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

14/19

18. In support of the case of the

respondent Corporation, the Learned counsel has

relied on the following judgments of the Division

Bench of this Court reported in (1) 2012 (2) PLJR

783 (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs.

Raj Kumar Jha & ors) , and (2) order passed in

LPA No. 925 of 2012 (Mukesh Pandey Vs. The

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors.) .

19. The observations made by the Hon’ble

Division Bench in M/s Indian Oil Corporation

Limited (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:

“8. We are of the opinion that

the Corporation being the State within

the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution is supposed to act fairly,

reasonably and uniformly and has to be

objective in its approach. Once the

standard is set out in the advertisement,

the Corporation has to adhere to the said

standard without any variation. In case,

the Corporation allows any alteration the

same will amount to subjective approach

which is frowned upon by the Courts time

and again. To remain objective the

Corporation is required to adhere to the

standards mentioned in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

15/19

advertisement. In the present case, it is

not in dispute that the application made

by the Writ petitioner was not in

conformation with the requirements

mentioned in the advertisement. In our

opinion, the Corporation was justified in

rejecting the application of the Writ

petitioner.

9. The Learned Single Judge

ought not to have interfered with the

decision of the Corporation which was

taken in consonance with the terms and

conditions contained in the

advertisement. Besides; may be, in the

present case it was a mere typographical

error. However, there might be a case of

mischief or misrepresentation also. It is

difficult to draw a line where an error

ends and a mischief or misrepresentation

begins. The best way to avoid

discrimination is strict adherence to the

standards mentioned in the

advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons

we hold that the Corporation was

justified in rejecting the application of

the Writ petitioner. The Appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment and

order dated 28th January, 2010 passed

by the Learned Single Judge in CWJC No.

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

16/19

13196 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No.

13196 is dismissed.”

20. Having heard the Learned counsel for

the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings and

materials available on record, this Court finds that

the principal issue which falls for consideration is

whether the alternate land offered by the

petitioner fulfilled the eligibility criteria prescribed

under the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG

Distributors and the terms of the advertisement.

21. It is not in dispute that although the

petitioner was declared successful in the draw of

lots, the Letter of Selection dated 31.01.2018 was

subject to successful Field Verification of

Credentials (FVC) and verification of eligibility.

Therefore, mere selection did not confer any

vested or indefeasible right upon the petitioner to

claim grant of the distributorship.

22. The records reveal that the lease deed

initially offered by the petitioner was executed

after the last date of submission of the application

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

17/19

and, therefore, the Corporation granted him an

opportunity to furnish alternate land. The dispute

thereafter centred around the ownership of the

alternate land bearing Khata No. 477, Khesra No.

341. While the petitioner claimed that Shri Ranglal

Dusadh and Ram Lal Ram were one and the same

person, the Corporation found discrepancies in the

supporting documents and revenue records.

Repeated clarifications were sought from the Circle

Officer, but the Corporation ultimately found that

the petitioner had failed to produce satisfactory

corroborative evidence establishing the identity of

the land owner and his eligibility under the

Guidelines. The impugned order dated 23.11.2018

records the reasons for arriving at such conclusion.

23. The scope of judicial review under

Article 226 of the Constitution is confined to

examining the legality of the decision-making

process and not the merits of the decision itself.

This Court does not find that the respondent-

Corporation acted arbitrarily or in violation of the

prescribed Guidelines. Rather, the materials on

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

18/19

record indicate that adequate opportunity was

afforded to the petitioner to establish his eligibility

before the impugned decision was taken.

24. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s

Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra), has held

that the eligibility conditions contained in the

advertisement and the Selection Brochure are

required to be strictly adhered to and no relaxation

can be granted, as any deviation would result in

arbitrariness and discrimination amongst similarly

situated candidates. The said principle squarely

applies to the facts of the present case.

25. Moreover, after cancellation of the

petitioner's candidature, a fresh selection process

was undertaken and respondent no. 6 has already

been appointed as distributor. Thus, third-party

rights have also come into existence.

26. In the aforesaid facts and

circumstances, this Court finds no illegality,

arbitrariness or procedural impropriety in the

decision of the respondent-Corporation

communicated vide Annexure-12 warranting

Patna High Court CWJC No.24190 of 2018 dt.03-07-2026

19/19

interference in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the petitioner has failed to establish

any enforceable legal right to the reliefs claimed.

27. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

28. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,

shall stand disposed of.

Spd/-

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)

AFR/NAFR NAFR

CAV DATE NA

Uploading Date 03.07.2026

Transmission Date