Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79873-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32776 of 2024 Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Nishad Respondent :- Bharat Petrolem Corporation Limited And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anjum Vishakarma Counsel for Respondent :- Archana Singh,Komal Mehrotra Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner has assailed the action of the respondent authorities and sought for the following reliefs:- "(I) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 and as well as impugned order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the opposite parties contained as a Annexure No.2 and 3 along with the petition. (II) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby directing to the opposite parties to striking down the impugned circular dated 28.06.2023 being corrigendum to clause (4) (VI) (a) in the Rules of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd 2023 contained as a Annexure No.16 along with this petition. (III) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby declaring to the ultra-virus of the provisions of the clause (4) (vi) (a) of the Rules of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd 2023, as well as quashing of the impugned order after declaring the ultra-virus that in effect. (IV) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS there by directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in light of the lease deed dated 31.07.2023 executed by the land owner and award of Retail Outlet Dealership to the petitioner contained as an Annexure No.8 in the interest of justice. ..." 3. The principal argument of the petitioner is that Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure for Selection of the Dealers requiring all the co- owners to execute the lease deed of the land, which is being offered by the petitioner to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Oil Corporation') for setting up the retail outlet, is a clause that is ultra vires the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Rules, 2023. It is further submitted that there is a stark difference between the term "co-owners" and "co-sharers". It is his contention that even though on the date of the application there was no partition of the land that was leased to the petitioner, the petitioner was well within his right to get portion of the land required for setting up of the retail outlet leased by one of the co-owners. He submits that partition/demarcation of the land is not required. 4. Per contra, Ms. Archana Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the Oil Corporation, submits that the arguments made by the petitioner are self contradictory, inane, farcical and without any basis in law whatsoever. She further submits that the particular clause requiring all the co-owners/co-sharers to execute the lease deed is for the protection of the Oil Corporation which do not want to go into any litigation that may be filed by any of the co- sharers/co-owners that have not executed the lease deed. She further submits that the petitioner was not qualified simply because he did not provide the executed lease deed from all the co-owners. Ergo, she contents that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Upon pondering upon the arguments raised by the petitioner, we are of the view that the same are superfluous and without any basis in law. The petitioner, admittedly, did not have the lease deed executed by both the co-owners. This requirement is clearly a fair requirement in the rules and regulations of the Oil Corporation as obtaining a lease deed from one of the co-owners would leave the Oil Corporation subject to litigation in future. Furthermore, since the property is not demarcated/partitioned, it is imperative that all the co-owners/co-sharers sign and execute the lease deed. This principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court as well as in catena of judgments passed by coordinate Bench judgments of this Court. (see: Rahul Sing v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:40545-DB & Akshya Kumar Jaiswal v. Union of India an other, Neutral Citation No.- 2024:AHC:107416-DB). 6. Furthermore, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to make any submission to substantiate his challenge made to the vires of the rules of the Oil Corporation. 7. In light of the above, we are of the view that this writ petition is without any merit whatsoever and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 14.5.2025 Rakesh (Dr. Y.K. Srivastava J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad