1 2025:CGHC:12200 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5358 of 2010 1 - Onkar Mourya S/o Brajmanand Mourya, aged about 29 years, R/o Ward No. 07, Brahmanand Morya Holler Aata Chakki Mill, Mungeli Raod, Lormi, Tahsil Lormi And Distt. Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, “A” Wing, Second Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Raod, New Delhi, (India). 2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through senior Area Manager, Area Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Gandhi Marg, VIP Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tashil and District Raipur, Chhattigarh. 3. Yogesh Pathak, S/o Laxmi Seok Pathak, Aged about 29 years, R/o Old Bus Stand, Ward No.8, Lormi, Tahsil Lormi and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Nilima Jyotshi, S/o. Not known, aged about 27 years, R/o. Mahendra Tripathi, Tripathi Medical Stores, Opposite government Hospital, Main Road, Lormi Tahsil Lormi and District Bilaspur, Chhattigarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, C.G.C. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Anand Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate with Shri Shailendra Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate alongwith Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10.03.2025 SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1. It is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/ quash the impugned order dated 30.8.10/ Annexure P-1 and further may also be pleased to grant the well deserved allotment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Lormi District Bilaspur (C.G.) under open category advertised on 19.10.2009 in favour of the petitioner. 10.2 Any other relief/ reliefs which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, with cost of the petition may also please be granted to the petitioner.” 2. The facts of the present case are that an advertisement was issued by respondent No.2 on 19.10.2009, inviting applications for the dealership of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV). The petitioner along with other eligible candidates including respondent No.4 submitted their applications. The requirements, according to the advertisement, were as follows:- “4. Common Eligibility Criteria for all Categories: Applicant applying for RGGLV should (a) be an Indian citizen (b) be a resident of the town /village(s) of the advertised RGGLV location (c) have passed minimum Xth Standard examination of equivalent from recognized Board (d) be not less than 21 years and not more than 45 years in age as on the date of application (e) fulfil Multiple dealership/distributorship norm Multiple Dealership/Distributorship norms means that the applicant or any other member of ‘family unit’ should not hold a dealership/distributorship/RGGLV of a PSU Oil Company i.e. only one Retail Outlet/SKO-LDO dealership/ LPG distributorship/ RGGLV of PSU Oil 3 Company will be allowed to a "Family Unit. 'Family Unit’ in case of married person/ applicant, shall consist of individual concerned, his/her Spouse and their unmarried son(s)/ daughter(s). In case of unmarried person/ applicant, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned his/her parents and his/her unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s). In case of divorcee, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/unmarried daughter(s) whose custody is given to him/her. In case of widow/widower, ‘Family Unit’ shall consist of individual concerned, unmarried son(s)/ unmarried daughter(s). (f) have minimum total amount of Rs 2 lakhs put together from Saving accounts in Bank (as on date of application), free and unencumbered fixed deposits in scheduled banks, Kisan Vikas Patra, NSC, bonds, any other investment, etc in the name of self or family members of the ‘Family Unit’ as defined above. (In case of RGGLV locations reserved under ‘SC/ST’ category, applicants with less than Rs.2 lakhs are also eligible also apply). For evaluation purpose, marks will be awarded to applicants of all categories based on the amount mentioned in the application. (g) own a suitable land (plot) of minimum 20 metre X 24 metre in dimension at the advertised RGGLV location for construction of LPG cylinder Storage Godown. Own means having clear ownership title of the property in the name of applicant/ family member of the 'Family Unit’ as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norm. In case of ownership/ co-ownership by family member, consent letter from the family member will be required. Land for construction of Godown will be considered suitable, if it is freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipelines/Canals/ Drainage/ Nallahs should not be passing through the plot. (h) be physically and mentally sound to be able to run the business. (i) neither have been convicted nor charges been framed by any Court of Law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offences. (j) not be a signatory to distributorship/dealerships agreement, terminated on account of proven cases of malpractice/adulteration of any Oil Company.” -4- 3. The respondent authorities of Indian Oil Corporation scrutinized the applications submitted by the candidates and the petitioner’s name was eventually selected. He was communicated in this regard vide letter dated 28.4.2010. The officials of Indian Oil Corporation visited the spot for physical verification, and it was found that the approach road was not available, therefore, a show- cause notice dated 25.06.2010 was issued to the petitioner to provide an approach road or any alternative plot. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show-cause notice stating that there was an approach road and that the land is recorded in the names of the co-owners, who are family members of the petitioner. It was also stated that an application for the division of land had already been moved before the concerned Tehsildar. Later, an additional reply was filed by the petitioner in which it was stated that the adjacent land had been purchased by the petitioner for widening the approach road. Respondent No.2 vide order dated 30.08.2010, cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the land bearing Survey No.643/2 did not have an approach road, and this fact was not disclosed in the application. It was also observed that this fact was accepted by the petitioner in the panchnama dated 10.6.2010, in the presence of the Patwari. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the field verification, various documents were submitted to respondent No.2, but those documents and replies were not taken into consideration. He would contend that respondent No. 2, without the application of mind and without considering the submissions made by the petitioner, cancelled the selection of the petitioner. 5 He would further submit that the decision of respondent No.2 appears to be biased and malafide. He would further contend that the approach road to the land bearing Survey No.643/2 had been available since 1987, and that was the reason for not disclosing this fact in the application. He would also contend that the revenue authorities including the Patwari, never made any statement against the petitioner to the effect that the approach road was not available to Survey No.643/2. He would argue that the approach road was available on the land belonging to the petitioner and other family members, therefore, there was no occasion or reason to disclose this fact either in the application form or by filing any additional affidavit or document. He would further argue that the demarcation report submitted by the petitioner dated 05.07.2010 would reveal that the approach road was available to Survey No.643/2. He would also argue that an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 21.09.2010, wherein it was observed that any subsequent action in respect of the subject matter of the petition shall be subject to the final decision of this petition. He would fairly submit that the order of allotment has already been issued in favour of respondent No.4, but that order has not been challenged as there is an interim order in favour of the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would argue that the petitioner offered Survey No.643/2 in the application form. He would contend that although the name of the petitioner was selected, during the course of field -6- verification, it was found that in front of Survey No.643/2, there is land belonging to Sanat Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Jyoti. He would contend that the petitioner had not provided correct information in the application form and that there was no approach road to Survey No.643/2. He would further submit that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity for a hearing, and the decision was made by respondent No. 2 after considering the material placed before it. Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 would argue that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are ineligible for allotment of RGGLV at Lormi. He would further submit that respondent No.4 is not a resident of Lormi, whereas the petitioner could not fulfill the required criteria. He would contend that the petition filed by respondent No.3 is pending. Ms. Diksha Gouraha, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would submit that after the cancellation of the selection of the petitioner, a redraw was conducted by the IOCL, and respondent No.4 was selected in that process. She would further submit that respondent No.4 was selected as she fulfills all required criteria. Shri Tushar Dhar Diwan, CGC appearing for respondent No.1 would support the contentions made by counsel for respondents No.3 & 4. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 7. According to the advertisement, one of the required criteria was that there should be an approach road for godown and agency. The petitioner, in his application, mentioned Survey No.643/2 and described its location as adjacent to the main road. The petitioner 7 was selected and duly communicated. During the field verification, it was found that the land of the petitioner i.e. Survey No.643/2 is not situated adjacent to the road, and the approach road is also not available. The IOCL authority issued a show-cause notice and provided the petitioner with sufficient opportunity to offer any alternative plot, but the petitioner failed to do so. 8. During the field verification, it was found that in front of Survey No.643/2, the land of Sanat Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Jyoti was situated, and the approach road was also not available. It appears that the petitioner purchased a plot for road widening; however, this plot was purchased after the last date for the submission of the application which was one of the reasons for the cancellation of selection of the petitioner. 9. Taking into consideration the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the reasons assigned in the order dated 30.8.2010, the application form submitted by the petitioner (wherein he mentioned Survey No.643/2 as adjacent to the main road), and the fact that the petitioner has not challenged the order of allotment to respondent No.4, no case is made out for interference. 10.Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi