As per case facts, the petitioner, an SC (Physically Handicapped) candidate, was provisionally selected for a retail outlet dealership under Group-2. He uploaded initial documents and paid a security deposit. ...
Date on which judgment was reserved : 29.01.2026
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 12.03.2026
Date on which judgment was uuploaded
on the website of the High Court : 12.03.2026
APHC010498342025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3327]
THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 25423/2025
Between:
1. YARLAGADDA ABBULU,, S/O. Y. PATTABHI, AGED AB OUT
34 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.9 -124, RAYAVARAM HABITAT,
VEDURUPAKA VILLAGE, RAYAVARAM MANDAL, EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533346.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS SHASTRI BHAV AN,
NEW DELHI.
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AND THE STATE HEAD, TELANGANA AND
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE OFFICE, MOOSAPET,
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA.
3. THE HEAD OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LIMITED, LIE BUILDING, 8 TH FLOOR,
NEAR RTC COMPLEX, VISAKAHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the
High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ order or
direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF
MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in
2
rejecting the petitioner application vide ref IOCL16944339800718
dated 11.09.2025 by the 3rd respondent and moved the application
from Group-2 to Group-3 level though the petitioner was
provisionally selected for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at FROM
NH 216 JUNCTION TO NEW BUS STAND, YANAM ON
DRAKSHARAM ROAD WITHIN YANAM MUNICIPAL LIMITS (NOT
NH) State PUDUCHERRY District YANAM, is highly illegal,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violation of Article 14, 19,21 and 300(A)
of the Constitution of India and hence the impugned rejection order
is liable to be set aside and consequently direct the 3rd respondent
to continue/process the petitioner application at Group-2 level and
issue Letter of Intent for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at FROM
NH 216 JUNCTION TO NEW BUS STAND, YANAM ON
DRAKSHARAM ROAD WITHIN YANAM MUNICIPAL LIMITS (NOT
NH) State PUDUCHERRY District YANAM as t he petitioner
uploaded all the required documents without reference to the
rejection order
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 3rd respondent
to continue/process the petitioner application at Group-2 level and
issue Letter of Intent for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at FROM
NH 216 JUNCTION TO NEW BUS STAND, YANAM ON
DRAKSHARAM ROAD WITHIN YANA M MUNICIPAL LIMITS (NOT
NH) State PUDUCHERRY District YANAM by suspending
impugned rejection order as the petitioner uploaded all the required
documents, pending disposal of the Writ Petition
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,
the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the
respondent authorities to consider the representation filled along with
the rectified all the curable documents dated 19.09.2025 and
continue the application under Group-2 level without reference to
the orders dated 11.09.2025 & 13.10.2025 and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M UMA DEVI (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL )
2. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM
This court made the following:
3
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25423 of 2025
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action
of respondents in rejecting petitioner’s application vide Ref.
No.IOCL 16944339800718, dated 11.09.2025 issued by 3
rd
respondent and moving the application from Group -2 to
Group-3 level though the petitioner was provisionally
selected for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at the
location ‘From NH 216 Junction to New Bus Stand, Yanam,
on Draksharam Road within Yanam Municipal Limits’ in
Yanam District, Union Territory of Puducherry (hereinafter
referred to, as ‘the subject outlet’), as illegal and arbitrary,
and consequently set aside the rejection order and direct
3
rd respondent to continue/process the petitioner’s
application at Group-2 level and issue Letter of Intent for
award of Retail Outlet at the aforesaid location.
2. Contents of the affidavit filed by the petitioner in
support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are as follows.
Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. He
is a physically disabled person, with 90% disability.
4
Pursuant to a Notification dated 28.06.2023 issued by 3
rd
respondent-IOC, the petitioner submitted online application
dated 10.07.2023 seeking allotment of subject retail outlet,
under SC(PH) category in Group-2. He obtained willingness
from land owner for leasing out the site situated in Ward
No.A, Block No.9, TS No.28/3, R.S.No.124pt, CS
No.13/1/2pt, Patta No.92, Mettacur, Yanam, either to the
IOC or to him, if the dealership is awarded to him for
setting up the retail outlet. Pursuant to his application,
IOC issued a letter of reference No.IOC16944339800718,
dated 26.6.2025, informing him that he got qualified for
draw of lots for selection of the dealership and asking him
to be present on 7.7.2025 at 11.30 AM at HPC Regional
office, Tadepalli, Guntur district. Later, he received another
letter of reference dated 10.7.2025 informing him that he
got provisionally selected for award of the subject retail
outlet under Group-2 category. Pursuant thereto, as
informed by the company, the petitioner uploaded the
requisite documents along with Rs.30,000/- towards initial
5
security deposit on 28.7.2025, which was confirmed by the
IOC.
On 13.08.2025, IOC sent another a letter advising the
petitioner to upload the documents (rectifiable deficiencies)
mentioned therein, by 03.09.2025 for further processing of
his application. But, due to ill-health as he was suffering
from Bacterial Meningitis from 2
nd week to 4
th week of
August, 2025, the petitioner could not check or verify his e-
mail inbox.
It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was
suffering from locomotor/orthopaedic disability with 90%
disability and he was totally bedridden due to Bacterial
Meningitis and did not have access to any computer during
2
nd week to 4
th week of August, 2025. On 08.09.2025, with
the help of his friend, he forwarded message through
Whatsapp to IOC, Visakhapatnam requesting to send
status of his application, for which he received a letter on
11.09.2025 stating that in view of non-submission of the
documents mentioned in rectifiable deficiencies, the
petitioner’s candidature was found ineligible, but his
6
candidature may get considered along wit h Group-3
applicants as per the Guidelines.
It is stated that the petitioner got selected out of six
candidates through draw of lots, under Category-2, and in
view of moving his candidature from Group-2 to Group-3,
his chance of getting the dealership is very remote. Group-
3 deals with those applicants without any land/no land.
The petitioner obtained willingness from the owner of the
land situated in Yanam, Puducherry, whereunder the land
owner expressed willingness to lease to lease the land either
to the petitioner or to the IOC, for 20 years. Though all the
documents given by the petitioner are in order, he was
moved from Group-2 to Group-3. He already incurred
huge expenses on site advance, payment of rentals to the
land owners from October, 2023 and initial security
deposit, etc. Petitioner is unemployed youth, belonging to
Scheduled Caste (physically handicapped) category. The
action of IOC in rejecting his application for allotment of
retail outlet and making him ineligible in Group-2 level is
illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the Writ Petition.
7
3. Respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit denying
the material averments in the affidavit filed in support of
the Writ Petition and contending inter alia that there is no
violation of any Fundamental Rig ht conferred on the
petitioner under the Constitution of India, and the writ
affidavit is bereft of any such particulars mandated under
Rule 5 (b) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977, and the Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
It is further stated in the counter affidavit that
pursuant to the application of the petitioner for allotment of
the subject outlet, provisional selection of the petitioner
was informed through communication dated 26.6.2025 to
his registered e-mail address vamsikrishna.kkd@gmail.com,
requesting him to personally appear with a valid photo
identity card on 7.7.2025; that on 10.7.2025, another
communication was issued by 3
rd respondent to the same
e-mail id confirming the petitioner’s provisional selection
and asking him to remit Rs.30,000/ - as Initial Security
Deposit and to upload self-attested copies of the documents
mentioned therein, and it is clearly mentioned in the said
8
communication that all self-attested copies would be
verified with the originals during Field Verification of
Credentials.
The petitioner was informed through an intimation
dated 13.08.2025 sent to his aforesaid registered email id,
to rectify certain deficiencies noticed in the documents
submitted by him, as per the Retail Outlet Dealership
Selection Guidelines viz.to submit disability certificate in
correct format; furnish a fresh Appendix -III affidavit
executed on stamp paper in the name of the land owner
K.Lakshmana Murthy (as the firm offer affidavit earlier filed
was executed on petitioner’s own name), etc., providing 21
days’ time therefor as stipulated in the Guidelines, but he
failed to submit the aforesaid documents; that the
petitioner admitted through representations dated
13.9.2025 and 19.9.2025, that he missed the last date as
he could not check his mail; that as per Clause 23 of the
Retail Outlet Dealership Selection Guidelines, failure to
furnish rectified documents within the stipulated time
automatically entails rejection or movement of the
9
application to Group-3. As per Clause 14 read with Clause
23 of the Brochure, failure to submit rectified documents
within the prescribed time automatically results in rejection
or movement to Group-3, and no discretion is vested with
2
nd respondent to relax or extend the period. Accordingly,
the petitioner was declared ineligible and he was informed
that his candidature would be considered along with
Group-3 applicants, and the said action of respondents is
in accordance with the Guidelines.
The counter affidavit also pointed out various
deficiencies which are not rectified by the petitioner.
It is further stated that this Court, vide Order dated
18.09.2025 in the present Writ Petition, permitted the
petitioner to resubmit the document s, and thereupon
directed the respondents to verify the same and obtain
necessary instructions; that accordingly, 2
nd respondent
examined all relevant records and representations
submitted by the petitioner, and after due scrutiny, passed
a reasoned order dated 13.10.2025, disposing of his
representations, stating that petitioner’s candidature under
10
Group-2 was unsustainable on account of the unrectified
deficiencies and accordingly the candidature was moved to
Group-3 and the same is in conformity with the uniform
selection guidelines. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ
Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste –Physically
handicapped category and he got provisionally selected for
award of the subject retail outlet under Group-2 category,
and accordingly, he uploaded the requisite documents and
paid initial security deposit on 28.7.2025. He submits that
due to his ill-health from 2
nd week to 4
th week of August,
2025, the petitioner could not notice the intimation dated
13.8.2025 sent to his mail by the respondents, asking him
to rectify certain deficiencies noticed in the documents
submitted by him, and that on 8.9.2025, he sent a message
through whatsapp requesting to send status of his
application for allotment of the subject retail outlet, and on
that he received the letter on 11.9.2025 stating that in view
of his failure in submitting the documents mentioned in
11
rectifiable deficiencies within the stipulated time, his
candidature was found ineligible and his candidature
would be considered along with Group-3 applicants. He
submits that non-submission of documents mentioned in
rectifiable deficiencies within time is neither intentional nor
wanton, but due to his ill-health.
The learned counsel further submits that he
submitted all requisite documents and there is no
deficiency, and that if candidature is moved from Group-2
to Group-3, his chance of getting the dealership is remote,
and as he incurred huge expenses on site advance, etc., he
prays to allow the Writ Petition
5. Learned counsel for the respondents , while
reiterating the averments in the counter affidavit,
contended that all the communications in respect of his
application for allotment of the subject outlet, including his
provisional selection, to remit Rs.30,000/- as Initial
Security Deposit, to upload self-attested copies of the
documents mentioned therein, etc., were sent to the
petitioner to his registered e -mail id viz.
12
vamsikrishna.kkd@gmail.com, for which he responded; that
the intimation dated 13.08.2025 asking him to rectify
certain deficiencies was also sent to the said registered e-
mail id, providing 21 days’ time therefor, and the petitioner
failed to submit the rectifiable deficiencies within the time
stipulated therein; that as per Clause 23 of the Retail
Outlet Dealership Selection Guidelines, failure to furnish
rectified documents within the stipulated time
automatically entails rejection or movement of the
application to Group-3, and no discretion is vested with 2
nd
respondent to relax or extend the time, and accordingly, the
petitioner was declared ineligible and informed that his
candidature would be considered along with Group -3
applicants; that the said action of respondents is strictly in
accordance with the Guidelines.
He further submits that pursuant to the Order passed
by this Court dated 18.09.2025 in the present Writ Petition,
the petitioner resubmitted the documents, and the
respondents examined all relevant records and
representations submitted by the petitioner, and passed a
13
reasoned order dated 13.10.2025, stating that petitioner’s
candidature under Group-2 was unsustainable on account
of the unrectified deficiencies and accordingly the
candidature was moved to Group-3; that the action of the
respondents is in conformity with the uniform selection
guidelines.
He submits that the action of the respondents is
strictly in accordance with the Guidelines; that there is no
violation of any statutory right of the petitioner, and
therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. Now, the point that arises for consideration in
this Writ Petition is whether the action of respondents in
rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for
award of the subject retail outlet and moving it from Group-
2 to Group-3 level, is sustainable and whether there is
infringement of any legal or statutory right of the petitioner
calling for interference of this Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ?
7. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The
petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste -Physically
14
challenged category, pursuant to an Advertisement dated
28.06.2023 given by the respondent-corporation, submitted
an online application on 10.07.2023 for the purpose of
allotment of a Retail Outlet Dealership at the location ‘From
NH 216 Junction to New Bus Stand, Yanam, on
Draksharam Road within Yanam Municipal Limits’ in
Yanam District, Union Territory of Puducherry’. The said
allotment process is governed by ‘Guidelines on Selection of
Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets through Draw
of Lots/Bidding Process’ (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the
Guidelines’). The petitioner was provisionally selected in
the draw of lots conducted. It is also evident from the
record that the petitioner was informed about the selection
in draw of lots, by way of communication dated 26.06.2025
to his registered e-mail id vamsikrishna.kkd@gmail.com,
and he was asked to appear in person with a photo identity
card on 07.07.2025. It is also evident from the record
that by way of another communication dated 10.07.2025 to
the said registered e-mail id, the petitioner was informed
about confirmation of his provisional selection and
15
directing to remit a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards initial
security deposit through online mode by 20.07.2025 and to
upload self-attested copies of the documents mentioned
therein i.e. notarized affidavit; proof of age and educational
qualifications; details regarding land ownership proof,
lease, sketch of the land; PAN and Aadhar cards and
specific documents prescribed for SC -PH category
applicants. According to the petitioner, he furnished the
initial security deposit and also self-attested copies of the
aforesaid documents.
8. As there are certain rectifiable deficiencies, the
respondent corporation, vide communication dated
13.08.2025 sent to the aforesaid registered e-mail id of the
petitioner, informed the petitioner to rectify the same. A
perusal of the material on record reveals that t hese
rectifiable deficiencies include- submission of disability
certificate in correct format i.e. in Appendix-IXA, instead of
Appendix-IXC; furnishing a fresh Appendix-III affidavit,
which is executed on stamp paper in the name of the land
owner, as the firm offer affidavit filed earlier was executed
16
in petitioner’s own name; filing a complete Appendix-XA
affidavit duly filled with unapplicable clauses struck off and
to clarify mismatch between survey number mentioned in
the application and the survey details reflected in the
uploaded land documents. The petitioner was given 21
days’ time, as prescribed under Guideline No.14 of the
Guidelines, to rectify the aforesaid rectifiable deficiencies
and to furnish the rectified copies of the aforesaid
documents.
9. According to the petitioner, due to ill-health and
as he was suffering from Bacterial Meningitis from 2
nd week
to 4
th week of August, 2025, he could not check or verify
his e-mail inbox. It is the case of the petitioner that he
was suffering from locomotor/orthopaedic disability with
90% disability and he was totally bedridden due to
Bacterial Meningitis and did not have access to any
computer during 2
nd week to 4
th week of August, 2025, and
on 08.09.2025, with the help of his friend, he forwarded
message through Whatsapp to IOC, Visakhapatnam
requesting to send status of his application, for which he
17
received a letter on 11.09.2025 stating that in view of non-
submission of the documents mentioned in rectifiable
deficiencies, the petitioner’s candidature was found
ineligible, but his candidatures may get considered along
with Group-3 applicants as per the guidelines.
10. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, he
could not correct the rectifiable deficiencies pointed out by
the respondent-Corporation and communicated to him
through his registered e-mail id, on 13.8.2025, within the
prescribed time of 21 days. After lapse of the prescribed
21 days’ time, he made representations dated 13.9.2025
and 19.9.2025 whereunder he admitted that he missed the
last date and could not check the communication dated
13.08.2025 sent to his registered e-mail id. Now, it has to
be seen what is its effect ?
11. There cannot be any dispute that Guidelines on
Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets
through Draw of Lots/Bidding Process would govern the
selection of dealers and the same are binding on all Oil
Marketing Companies, including the respondent -
18
corporation. The said Guidelines are not under challenge.
Guideline No.14 thereof deals with Selection Procedure.
Guideline No.14.E.ix. stipulates that scrutiny of the
documents would be carried out, only after receipt of 10%
of the Security Deposit (Initial Security Deposit) and
documents through the portal. Guideline No.14.E.x.
stipulates that in case of rectifiable deficiency in the
documents submitted, intimation to the provisionally
selected candidate will be sent to submit the required
corrected documents within 21 days. The effect of non-
submission of the rectified documents within the time
stipulated, is also prescribed in the said Guidelines.
Guideline No.14.E.xi. stipulates that in case the rectified
documents are not submitted within stipulated time or the
submitted rectified documents are not as per the
requirement, intimation regarding rejection of his/her
candidature will be sent to the provisionally selected
candidate. The said Guideline also stipulates that for
locations advertised under SC/ST cate gory, if rectified
documents related to offered land are not submitted, the
19
applicant will be given intimation regarding consideration of
his/her candidature along with Group -3 applicants,
provided all other deficiencies are rectified and the
candidature of the applicant was originally not in Group-3
or was not moved to Group-3 earlier.
12. Further, Guideline No.23 of the Guidelines deals
with ‘List of non-rectifiable deficiencies in applications’,
which stipulates the deficiencies in the application form for
Retail Outlet Dealer Selection, which are non-rectifiable,
and states that such applications will not be considered for
further selection process. Guideline No.23 (k) stipulates
that rectifiable deficiency not corrected within the specified
time (21 days) is a deficiency which is not rectifiable and
therefore such application will not be considered for further
selection process.
13. In the case on hand, even according to the
petitioner, he could not correct the rectifiable deficiencies
pointed out in the communication dated 13.8.2025 sent to
his e-mail id, within the stipulated time of 21 days.
Therefore, as per Guideline No.23 of the Guidelines, since
20
the rectifiable deficiencies are not corrected within 21 days,
the application of the petitioner will not be considered for
further selection process. In view of the same, as stipulated
under Guideline No.14 of the Guidelines, the respondent-
Corporation sent an intimation to the petitioner informing
about rejection of his candidature, and because the
petitioner belongs to SC category, he was informed that his
candidature may get considered along with Group -3
applicants as per the guidelines. Admittedly, the
Guidelines are binding on all Oil Marketing Companies,
including the respondent-Corporation and there is no
discretion vested in the respondent-Corporation. The said
Guidelines are not under challenge. Therefore, the course
of action adopted by the respondent-Corporation is strictly
as per the Guidelines and there is no infirmity.
14. All the earlier communications were sent to the
registered e-mail id of the petitioner and the same were
noticed by the petitioner and he acted upon the queries/
clarifications raised therein. Admittedly, the petitioner
responded to the communications sent to him to the said
21
registered e-mail id, in the months of June, 2025 and July,
2025, and complied with the queries raised therein.
Therefore, the course of action adopted by the respondent-
Corporation in sending the communication dated
13.8.2025 to the registered e-mail id of the petitioner,
pointing out rectifiable deficiencies and prescribing time to
rectify the same, cannot be found fault with. The reason
assigned by the petitioner for not correcting the rectifiable
deficiencies within the time stipulated, is due to ill-health
and as he was suffering from Bacterial Meningitis from 2
nd
week to 4
th week of August, 2025, he could not check or
verify his e-mail inbox. It is his case that he was totally
bedridden due to Bacterial Meningitis and did not ha ve
access to any computer during 2
nd week to 4
th week of
August, 2025. There is no satisfactory medical record filed
by the petitioner to substantiate the said version that he
had no access to either his computer or smart phone
during the relevant period from 13.8.2025.
15. Apart from the same, it is the specific case of the
petitioner that he had already submitted all the requisite
22
documents and all the documents given by the petitioner
are in order, and hence rejection of his candidature and
moving the same from Group-2 to Group-3 is not justified.
This Court, vide its Order dated 18.09.2025, directed the
petitioner to submit the required documents as per the
letter dated 13.08.2025, along with other relevant
documents to the respondents, and the respondents were
directed to verify the documents and get necessary
instructions for further adjudication of the case. Pursuant
to the same, the respondent-Corporation passed Order Ref.
No.IOC/VDO/PY /51, dated 13.10.2025, a copy of which
was filed along with counter affidavit of 3
rd respondent,
disposing of the representations dated 13.09.2025 and
19.09.2025 holding that candidature of petitioner under
Group-2 is not sustainable and that placement of his
candidature in Group-3 is in conformity of the Guidelines.
16. A perusal of the Order dated 13.10.2025 passed
by 3
rd respondent makes it clear that as per Guideline No.4
(VII) (e) of the Guidelines, the petitioner, who claims to be
under Locomotor/Orthopaedic disability, is required to
23
submit Certificate in Appendix IXA, which he failed to do
so. Another rectifiable deficiency, which the petitioner
could not correct, is as per the Guidelines, the affidavit has
to be executed on a stamp paper purchased in the name of
the land owner, but in the case on hand, the affidavit is in
the name of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to furnish
a fresh Appendix-III affidavit executed on stamp paper in
the name of the land owner K.Lakshmana Murthy , as the
firm offer affidavit earlier filed was executed on petitioner’s
own name. Further, there is also a mismatch with regard
to details of survey number or khasra number. In view of
these defects, 3
rd respondent disposed of the
representations made by the petitioner dated 13.09.2025
and 19.09.2025, holding that candidature of the petitioner
under Group-2 is not sustainable and his placement in
Group-3 is valid and the same is according to the
Guidelines.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court
has no hesitation to hold that the impugned action of the
respondent-respondent authorities is strictly in accordance
24
with the Guidelines governing the field, and there is no
infirmity. In the absence of infringement of any legal,
statutory or constitutional right of the petitioner, the Writ
Petition is not maintainable.
18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ
Petition shall stand closed.
(JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY)
DRK
12.3.2026
25
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.25423 of 2025
12.3.2026
DRK
Legal Notes
Add a Note....