Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:24635-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4098 of 2025 Petitioner :- Karna Pasvan Respondent :- Indian Oil Corporation Limited Lko. Thru. Its Executive Director And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Pandey,Jagriti Bardhan Rao Counsel for Respondent :- Kumar Ayush,Indrajeet Shukla,Pradeep Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J. 1. Heard Shri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation- respondent nos.1and 2 and Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel for private respondent no.3. 2. The petitioner herein had earlier approached this Court by means of Writ C No.2347 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2025 in the following terms:- “Vakalatnama filed by Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Advocate on behalf of respondent No.3 is taken on record. Heard. The petitioner has filed an objection regarding the eligibility of respondent No.3 for being considered for allotment of retail outlet for sale of petroleum products through the lottery system, as the land offered by him is jointly owned by four tenure holders whereas the lease has been executed only by one and as claimed by the petitioner, the partition suit in this regard has been rejected. After filing of this petition, the petitioner has received a notice from the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation dated 07.03.2025 acknowledging the complaint. The said letter dated 07.03.2025 is taken on record. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 says that the facts as stated by the petitioner are incorrect. We do not wish to enter into this controversy as the Indian Oil Corporation is already seized with the matter. We dispose of this petition with the direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of the complaint of the petitioner as per law after hearing the parties and getting the facts verified. Let a decision be taken within six weeks.” 3. Thereafter, the complaint of the petitioner has been decided vide order dated 21.03.2025, contained in Annexure no.2 to the writ petition, and the same has not been found to be tenable. Consequently, a Letter of Intent has been issued to opposite party no.3 on 25.03.2025. Both these actions are under challenge. 4.The contention of learned counsel for petitioner interalia is that though the reasoning given for rejecting the complaint is that the lessor who had leased the land to opposite party no.3 had a different Khata pertaining to Gata No.2422 minjumla and for that reason would be considered as a separate owner and the other co-sharers have different Khata, that is, there is theoretical division, therefore, the complaint is not tenable. However, while doing so, the officials of Indian Oil Corporation have ignored the fact that subsequent to the application of opposite party no.3 for grant of retail outlet, the said lessor Smt. Manju Shukla had filed a suit for partition in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj, District Gonda on 25.10.2024, which has been dismissed on 04.12.2024. This aspect has not been taken into consideration which reinforces the complaint that there is no actual partition of the land by metes and bounds and as per the policy of the Indian Oil Corporation any such land cannot be accepted if offered for establishment of a retail outlet. 5. Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 refutes the aforesaid facts and also the legal position. He relies upon certain decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to submit that even in such a situation the retail outlet can be given by the Indian Oil Corporation, as has been done. However, neither Shri Indrajet Shukla, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3 nor Shri Kumar Ayush, learned counsel for Indian Oil Corporation could deny the fact that the aforesaid aspect has not actually been considered in the impugned order. 6. We, therefore, direct the opposite party no.2- Divisional Retail Sales Head, Indian Oil Corporation Head, Lucknow to revisit the order dated 21.03.2025, contained in Annexure no.2 to the petition, in the light of the facts noticed herein above on an application to be submitted by the petitioner, get the facts verified in the light of the policy/ guidelines applicable for settling of retail outlets, hear out the opposite party no.3 and then take a considered decision in the matter, as per law, but with expedition, say within four weeks. 7. The Letter of Intent dated 25.03.2025 issued to opposite party no.3 as also the order dated 21.03.2025, annexed as annexure no.2 to the petition, shall abide by the fresh decision to be taken as directed aforesaid. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (Om Prakash Shukla, J.)(Rajan Roy, J.) Order Date :- 29.4.2025 Arnima Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench