( 2025:HHC:29302 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5717 of 2024 Decided on: 29.08.2025 Ajay Kumar .…Petitioner. Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral): By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, thereby, the Communication/Order dated 18.4.2024 qua the rejection of the petitioner against Group-1 RO Dealership rejected (Annexure P/9) as well as Communication/Order dated 08.06.2024 (Annexure-P/11) issued by the respondent No. 2 whereby, the representation of the petitioner was also rejected, kindly be quashed and set aside, with the further directions to the Respondents 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) Corporation to further process the application of the petitioner while considering the Affidavits of Co- owners (Annexure-III) for the allotment/appointment of the petitioner against Group-1 RO Dealership for the location, Village Manju, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba on Chamba-Tissa Road at Sr. No. 276 of Annexure-P/2, strictly in terms and conditions of the allotment of Retail Outlets Dealership of the Corporation, in the interest of justice and fair play. (ii) That entire records of the case may kindly be summoned for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in terms of Advertisement, dated 28th June, 2023, Annexure (P/1), the respondent-Corporation invited applications for setting-up of a Retail Outlet Dealership. The petitioner applied for the dealership at Village Manju, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba under the Scheduled Caste Category under Group-1. As per the petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-5, dated 05.12.2023, he was informed that he was provisionally selected for the award of Retail Outlet Dealership of the location concerned. He was called upon to remit an amount of Rs.20,000/- as well as documents applicable for the said category, which were referred to in the said communication. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-6, the petitioner was called upon to upload rectified/correct documents by 15th February, 2024, which were referred to in the said communication. 3 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) 3. In terms of Annexure P-7, the said demand of the documents was repeated. Thereafter, the petitioner received a communication dated 18th April, 2024, Annexure P-9, on the subject: ‘Application for award of RO dealership at Village Manju, Tehsil Churah, District Chamba, on Chamba Tissa Road, District Chamba, State Himachal Pradesh, Under SC category Advertised on 28-Jun-2023’. It was mentioned in this communication that in terms of letter written by the Company dated 25th January, 2024, the petitioner was advised to submit certain documents/corrected documents regarding the offered land. However, the Company had not received the required documents from the petitioner within the stipulated time, as detailed below:- “Affidavit as per appendix III from co-owners Hardev and Naresh Kumar not uploaded. Hence, it cannot be considered under Group-I.” In this communication, the petitioner was informed that in view of the above, the candidature of the petitioner was found ineligible under Group-1, however, his candidature may be considered for selection alongwith Group- 3 applicants as per Guidelines. He filed a representation in terms of Annexure P-10, yet in terms of P-11, his representation has been rejected and feeling aggrieved, he has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the candidature of the petitioner under Group-1 was arbitrarily rejected by the respondent-Corporation. He submitted that all the documents which were required to be submitted by the petitioner were indeed submitted by him, 4 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) even before the receipt of Annexure P-9 and as in terms of Annexure P-9, the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit the documents by way of representation, he did so, but his representation was wrongly rejected vide Annexure P-11 by erroneously mentioning therein that despite opportunity given on 18.04.2024, the requisite documents were not supplied by him and, therefore, the rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide Annexure P-9 was also bad in law. Accordingly, he prayed that the petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation referred to the documents appended with the petition as well as reply filed by the respondent-Corporation. He submitted that in the present case after candidature of the petitioner was provisionally accepted by the respondent-Corporation, he was called upon to submit the documents, which were necessary for considering his candidature under Group-1. However, the petitioner failed to do so and in this backdrop, his candidature was rejected vide Annexure P-9 under Group-1. The representation which the petitioner was called upon to make vide Annexure P-9 was only against this rejection. Learned Senior Counsel by referring to Annexure P-10, representation submitted by the petitioner, submitted that there was admission made by the petitioner in the representation that the documents which were desired by the Corporation were not supplied by him and in this backdrop, rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the respondent vide Annexure P-9 cannot be faulted with. He further submitted that otherwise also the candidature of the petitioner was only rejected under 5 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) Group-I, whereas, the Corporation had already stated in Annexure P-9 that his candidature would be considered under Group-3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of Annexure P-9, opportunity was not given to the petitioner to rectify the shortcomings in his case, on account whereof, his candidature was rejected under Group-1 and therefore, as no opportunity was granted in terms of Annexure P-9, even if it is contained in Annexure P-11 that opportunity was granted in terms of Annexure P-9 and even if the petitioner made good the shortcomings after Annexure P-9, the same is of no consequence. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 7. A perusal of the documents demonstrates that the respondent-Corporation had invited applications for Regular/Rural Retail Outlet Dealerships and the petitioner applied for Rural Retail Outlet Dealership. In terms of the application filed by him, he had applied for the grant of Retail Outlet Dealership under Group-I, which is evident from Annexure P/3, the Application Format filled up by the petitioner. The Brochure relating to the Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets is appended with the petition as Annexure P/4 and Clause-4 thereof deals with Eligibility Criteria For Individual Applicants- Proprietorship/Partnership and the applicants in terms thereof are to be classified into three Groups based on the land offered or not offered by them in the application Form. These three Groups are as under:- 6 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) “Group-1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group-2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST Category.” 8. In terms of Annexure P/5 to Annexure P/7, after provisional selection, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent- Corporation to furnish certain documents and as the petitioner failed to do the needful, in terms of Annexure P/9, dated 18.04.2024, he was informed that his candidature was found ineligible to be considered under Group-1 and his candidature would be considered under Group-3. 9. It is a matter of record that in terms of Annexure P-9, the petitioner was informed that if he is aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, he can file a representation. 10. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-10, the petitioner has made a representation, contents whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:- “….The humble applicant most respectfully is submitting the following representation by submitting the annexure-III on the require Performa which is as under:- 7 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) 1. That the applicant has applied for the RO dealership at Village Manju, Tehsil Churah Distt. Chamba HP on Chamba Tissa Road Distt. Chambe (H.P.) under SC category advertised on 28.01.2023. 2. That the applicant has uploaded the required relevant documents/information to the IOC well in time, however the required declaration on annexure- III could not be uploaded due to inadvertent clerical error on the part of the person to whom or documents alongwith annexure-III were handed over for uploading the same. 3. That this error was totally unintentional and not deliberate but purely incidental. It is pertinent to mention over here that the applicant has also obtained the affidavit of Sh. Hardeu duly sworn before executive Magistrate Churah dated 11-03-2024 which conveys the same sense which is required as per annexure-III. In the affidavit given by Sh. Hardeu, he has categorically stated that he has got he and his son Sh. Naresh Kumar are co-owners in Khatouni 45/63 Khasra No. 514/2 are measuring 03-19-00 Bighas Mohal Manju, Tehsil Churah Distt. Chamba (HP) and have got no objection in case of any kind of construction activity carried out by Sh. Ajay Kumar son of Devi Singh in case of allotment of RO dealership in the name of Sh. Ajay Kumar S/o Devi Singh in addition to the affidavit furnished by Sh. Hardeu, his son Sh. Naresh Kumar has also given in writing the powers to his father to take all necessary steps with regard to land. These documents are also annexed herewith with representation. 8 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) 4. That the applicant has annexed herewith this representation the required affidavit on annexue-III. It is, therefore, representation may kindly be accepted.” 11. A perusal of this document clearly demonstrates that the petitioner admitted in his representation that the documents etc. which were required to be furnished by him were not furnished for the reasons mentioned therein well within time. This clearly demonstrates that there is no error in Annexure P-9, i.e., communication dated 18th April, 2024, in terms whereof, the candidature of the petitioner was found ineligible under Group-1 for failure on the part of the petitioner to submit the requisite documents. That being the case, obviously, there being no infirmity in communication dated 18th April, 2024, this Court rejects the prayer of the petition for quashing of this document. 12. Now, as far as Annexure P-11 is concerned, this is only a communication to the petitioner of the rejection of his representation. Though it is mentioned in Clause-4 of this communication that the petitioner was given an opportunity to provide an affidavit vide communication dated 18.04.2024 and according to the petitioner, he did the needful thereafter, but this Court is of the considered view that these contents in communication Annexure P-11, dated 08.06.2024 do not come to the assistance of the petitioner. This is for the reason that in terms of Annexure P-9, the petitioner was categorically informed about his candidature having been found ineligible under Group-1. The right of representation which was conferred 9 ( 2025:HHC:29302 ) upon the petitioner was only to represent against rejection of his request under Group-1. In terms of Annexure P-9, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to rectify the shortcomings in his case, on account whereof, his candidature was rejected under Group-1. Therefore, as no opportunity was granted in terms of Annexure P-9, even if it was contained in Annexure P-11 that opportunity was granted in terms of Annexure P-9 and petitioner did not make good the shortcomings and even if the petitioner made good the shortcomings after Annexure P-9, the same was of no consequence. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner primarily is in terms of Annexure P-9 and as in this communication, this Court has not found any infirmity, therefore, subsequent communication Annexure P-11 cannot be used by the petitioner to assail the rejection of his candidature under Group-1. 13. In the light of above discussions, as this Court finds no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 29, 2025 (bhupender)