Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6063 of 2025 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Anil Kumar Sutar …. Petitioner(s) -versus- Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, Advocate For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC for O.P No.3 Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Advocate for O.P Nos. 1 & 2 Mr. Basudeb Pujari, Advocate for O.P No.4 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-08.04.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-17.04.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the letter dated 13.01.2025 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. rejecting his complaint, and to declare Opposite Party No. 4 ineligible for the dealership on account of non-fulfilment of prescribed land criteria. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 2 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement on 28.06.2023 for appointment of dealers for Rural Retail Outlet dealerships. In the list of advertised locations, at Serial No. 348, one outlet was notified for the location “within 5 km from Madanpur College Chowk towards Pattamundai on Rajnagar-Pattamundai Road.” The outlet was reserved for OBC candidates. The advertisement prescribed the minimum land requirement for the proposed retail outlet as 30 metres frontage, 30 metres depth, and total area of 900 square metres. (ii) The petitioner and Opposite Party No. 4 were both aspirants for the said dealership and both submitted applications within time. Opposite Party No. 4 offered two plots of land in Mouza Madanpur, namely Plot No. 1215/1709 under Khata No. 252/575 and Plot No. 1215/1708 under Khata No. 252/577, each measuring Ac. 0.1600 decimals, for establishment of the outlet. (iii) A dispute thereafter arose regarding the eligibility of the land offered by Opposite Party No. 4. The petitioner asserted that the frontage of the two plots, when taken together, was only 28.5 metres and therefore below the minimum requirement of 30 metres prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioner also alleged that there existed an intervening Government land, namely Plot No. 1410 recorded as Gochar land, between the Rajnagar-Pattamundai Road and the offered plots, thereby violating the brochure condition that Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 3 no other land, including Government land, should lie between the Right of Way and the offered land. (iv) The materials placed before the Court show that at one stage a measurement report of the Amin of Pattamundai Tahasil was relied upon by the petitioner to contend that the frontage of the two plots was 14 metres and 14.5 metres respectively. Subsequently, official demarcation proceedings were also undertaken in Demarcation Case Nos. 25 of 2024 and 26 of 2024, in which the frontage of the two plots was stated to be 70 Kadi and 80 Kadi respectively, totaling 150 Kadi, equivalent to about 30.18 metres. (v) The petitioner submitted a complaint before HPCL objecting to the selection of Opposite Party No. 4 on the grounds of deficiency in frontage and the existence of Gochar land between the road and the offered plots. HPCL sought clarification from the Tahasildar, Pattamundai. On the basis of such clarification, including the report that there was a gap of about 9 metres from the road to the offered land and that road connectivity existed to the proposed site, HPCL rejected the petitioner’s complaint by letter dated 13.01.2025. (vi) Thereafter the present writ petition was filed challenging the said letter dated 13.01.2025 and seeking consequential directions to reject the candidature of Opposite Party No. 4 for the retail outlet dealership. Counter affidavits and written notes of submission were filed by HPCL, the Tahasildar, Pattamundai, and Opposite Party No. 4 defending the rejection of the complaint and the selection process. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 4 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The petitioner contends that Opposite Party No. 4 did not satisfy the basic eligibility condition regarding frontage of land. According to the petitioner, before the selection process was finalized, the Amin of Pattamundai Tahasil had measured the frontage of the two plots offered by Opposite Party No. 4 and found them to be 14 metres and 14.5 metres respectively, making the total frontage only 28.5 metres. Since the advertisement specifically required a minimum frontage of 30 metres, the petitioner argues that Opposite Party No. 4 was ineligible from the outset and could not have been included in the draw of lots or selected for the dealership. (ii) The petitioner further contends that the later demarcation report showing the frontage as 150 Kadi or 30.18 metres cannot be accepted at face value. It is argued that this later exercise was undertaken only after objection had been raised by the petitioner, and that Opposite Party No. 4 managed to obtain a favourable report through a subsequent physical measurement. The petitioner’s case is that if the plots are measured on the village map and revenue records, the frontage remains only 28.5 metres and there was no necessity for a later physical measurement designed to alter the position. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 5 (iii) The petitioner also places strong reliance on Clause 4(vi)(o)(iv) of the Brochure governing selection of dealers. According to him, the clause clearly requires that there should be no other land, including Government land, between the Right of Way and the offered plot. In the present case, Plot No. 1410 admittedly stands between the Rajnagar-Pattamundai Road and the plots offered by Opposite Party No. 4. Since this plot is recorded as Government Gochar land in the Hal Record of Rights, the petitioner contends that the very existence of this strip of land disqualifies Opposite Party No. 4 irrespective of any alleged road connectivity through it. (iv) The petitioner submits that the plea of the opposite parties that Plot No. 1410 was acquired long ago for road improvement has not been substantiated by conclusive materials showing completed acquisition and lawful change in status. According to the petitioner, though a Gazette Notification dated 25.02.1983 was relied on to show that part of Sabik Plot No. 925 was proposed to be acquired for improvement of Pattamundai-Rajnagar Road, no final material has been produced to show that the relevant portion was in fact acquired and vested so as to cease being Gochar land. The petitioner emphasizes that in the Hal Record of Rights, Plot No. 1410 continues to stand recorded under Government Rakhit Khata with kisam as Gochar, which shows that the land has not lost its character. (v) The petitioner also argues that even the official stand of the Tahasildar and HPCL supports his case to the extent that there is a 9-metre gap of Gochar land between the main road and the offered Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 6 plots. He contends that mere assertion of “road connectivity” cannot override the brochure condition. According to him, unless the intervening land is lawfully recorded as road or forms part of the Right of Way in revenue records, the existence of such Gochar land remains a fatal defect in eligibility. (vi) Another significant submission of the petitioner is that Opposite Party No. 4 himself has admitted encroachment over Plot No. 1410. The petitioner points out that Opposite Party No. 4 faced encroachment proceedings under the OPLE Act in respect of the said Gochar land and paid fines on more than one occasion. This, according to the petitioner, is a clear admission that the plot is Government land lying between the road and the offered private plots. Therefore, the petitioner asserts that Opposite Party No. 4 cannot rely on his own encroachment over Government land to claim road access or eligibility for dealership. (vii) On the basis of the above, the petitioner contends that HPCL acted illegally and arbitrarily in rejecting his complaint and in proceeding with the selection of Opposite Party No. 4. It is submitted that the decision suffers from non-consideration of the brochure conditions and the undisputed revenue position of the land. The petitioner therefore seeks quashing of the rejection letter dated 13.01.2025 and consequential rejection of the candidature of Opposite Party No. 4. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 7 (i) HPCL, namely Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, contend that the writ petition is without merit and that the complaint of the petitioner was rejected only after due inquiry and consideration of relevant records. Their case is that the dealership selection process was conducted fairly, transparently, and strictly in accordance with the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets, June 2023. They maintain that both the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 4 applied for the same location, that Opposite Party No. 4 was selected through draw of lots, and that before issuance of the Letter of Intent the complaint raised by the petitioner was duly examined on the basis of reports and clarifications from the competent revenue authority. (ii) HPCL specifically contends that the land offered by Opposite Party No. 4 does satisfy the requirement of minimum frontage. Reliance is placed on the official demarcation conducted by the revenue authorities in Demarcation Case Nos. 25 and 26 of 2024, in which Plot No. 1215/1708 was found to have frontage of 70 Kadi and Plot No. 1215/1709 frontage of 80 Kadi, totalling 150 Kadi or about 30.18 metres. HPCL argues that this official demarcation overrides the petitioner’s private and self-serving measurement and that the frontage requirement in the advertisement stands fully met. (iii) On the issue of Plot No. 1410, HPCL contends that the petitioner’s objection is misconceived. According to them, though the Hal Record may still show the land as Gochar, the said plot was part of Sabik Plot No. 925 and had already been acquired by the Government for Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 8 improvement of Pattamundai-Rajnagar Road under old acquisition proceedings. They rely on the Tahasildar’s report and supporting communications from the Collector’s office to submit that the land forms part of the road infrastructure or its immediate periphery and provides access to the offered plots. Therefore, according to HPCL, Plot No. 1410 cannot be treated as an independent barrier or disqualifying strip of Government land within the meaning of the brochure. (iv) HPCL further submits that the Tahasildar, Pattamundai, by letter dated 02.11.2024, clearly reported that there is a 9-metre gap from the Odisha District Road to the offered land and that road connectivity exists to the proposed plots. The Corporation argues that it was justified in relying on this clarification from the competent revenue authority. It is also their case that the Land Evaluation Committee physically and objectively examined the land on the basis of official records, demarcation reports, and field verification before concluding that the land offered by Opposite Party No. 4 meets the corporation’s norms. (v) Opposite Party No. 3, the Tahasildar, Pattamundai, takes the stand that his role in the matter is limited and factual. The Tahasildar further contends that he is not the selecting authority for the dealership and had merely furnished factual information from official revenue records when sought by HPCL. According to him, on verification of the relevant records and demarcation proceedings, the plots offered by Opposite Party No. 4 stood in his name and the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 9 official measurement showed compliance with the required frontage. The Tahasildar also states that Plot No. 1410 is part of land that had been acquired for improvement of the road, and that the persistence of the “Gochar” entry in the Hal ROR is only a matter of record correction and does not negate the fact of acquisition or the availability of lawful connectivity. (vi) Opposite Party No. 3 further contends that the petitioner has wrongly attempted to make the Tahasildar a party to what is essentially a commercial and contractual dispute between rival dealership applicants and HPCL. According to the Tahasildar, no adverse order was passed by him against the petitioner and no writ relief lies against him merely because he supplied clarifications on the basis of official records. He also maintains that the Tahasildar has no unilateral power to alter the kisam in the Record of Rights except through due legal process, and therefore the continuance of the Gochar entry in the Hal record does not affect the legal position flowing from acquisition. (vii) Opposite Party No. 4, the selected candidate, supports the stand of HPCL and the Tahasildar and contends that his land fully satisfies the eligibility conditions. He submits that he had approached the Tahasildar for demarcation of his plots and that in the demarcation proceedings, after notice to concerned parties, the official Amin found the combined width of the two plots to be 150 Kadi. He therefore argues that the mandatory 30 metres frontage condition is satisfied. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 10 (viii) Opposite Party No. 4 also contends that the Government had already acquired the relevant Gochar land for road improvement and that the offered land is adjacent to the road through the said acquired strip. He submits that the existence of Plot No. 1410 does not create any legal impediment, particularly when the Tahasildar has reported road connectivity and the HPCL authorities have accepted the land as compliant. He additionally takes the position that the petitioner has failed to rebut the official records and reports produced by the authorities. (ix) The opposite parties, collectively, emphasize the presumption attaching to official acts and official records. They submit that the reports of the Tahasildar and Amin are public acts done in discharge of statutory duties and carry a presumption of correctness. Since, according to them, the petitioner has not produced cogent material to displace those official records, the Court ought not interfere with HPCL’s decision rejecting the complaint and proceeding with selection of Opposite Party No. 4. IV. JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS: 5. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 6. The writ petition arises out of a selection process initiated by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for appointment of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets in Odisha. One of the advertised locations is at or around Madanpur College Chowk towards Pattamundai, with the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 11 dealership reserved for OBC candidates and the mode of selection being draw of lots among eligible applicants. The advertised minimum land dimensions for this location are frontage 30 metres, depth 30 metres, and an area of 900 square metres. 7. Both the petitioner and the selected candidate applied for the said location within time. The dispute is confined to whether the land offered by the selected candidate satisfies the eligibility conditions, particularly the minimum frontage, and whether there exists any intervening Government land between the road right of way and the offered plot. The petitioner’s complaint was rejected by the corporation, prompting the present writ petition. 8. At the outset, it is relevant to notice that the governing selection brochure places the responsibility on the applicant to ensure that, as on the date of application, the offered land meets the advertised dimensions after leaving the right of way line, is situated abutting the right of way, and that there is no other land including Government land between the right of way and the offered plot. 9. The controversy in the writ petition raises two principal issues: a) First, whether the decision of the corporation in accepting the selected candidate’s offered land as meeting the minimum frontage requirement is so arbitrary, irrational, or perverse as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. b) Second, whether the allegation of the existence of an intervening strip of Government Gochar land between the road right of way and the offered plot constitutes a clear and undisputed violation Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 12 of the brochure condition, or whether it involves disputed questions of fact not amenable to adjudication in a writ petition. 10. In deciding these issues, the Court is guided by the settled limits of judicial review in contractual and selection matters concerning State instrumentalities and the self imposed restraint against embarking upon fact finding exercises that require detailed evidence. 11. The precedents in such matters have repeatedly emphasized that judicial review in such matters is directed at the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not a re-appraisal on merits. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India1, the Court while explaining the extent of judicial review, held as follows: “Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself.” 12. Similarly, in Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa2 the Supreme Court cautioned that tender and contract decisions are essentially commercial and that judicial review is meant to check whether choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether choice or decision is sound. The relevant excerpts are produced below: 22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract 1 1994 6 SCC 651. 2 2007 14 SCC 517. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 13 is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold.” 13. More recently, the Supreme Court in N G Projects Ltd v Vinod Kumar Jain3 reiterated that the tendering or selecting authority is the best judge of its requirements and that courts should not substitute their view for expert evaluation, particularly in technical matters, unless arbitrariness, mala fides, bias, or perversity is clearly shown. 14. The petitioner's case on frontage rests on two competing sets of measurements. One is an earlier measurement report referred to as being made by the local Amin, recording frontages of 14 metres and 14.5 metres for the two plots and, thus, a combined frontage of 28.5 metres. The other is a later official demarcation in demarcation case 3 2022 6 SCC 127. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 14 numbers 25 of 2024 and 26 of 2024, recording the frontages in local measurement units as 70 kadi and 80 kadi, totalling 150 kadi, which is stated to be about 30.18 metres. 15. On the material described on record, the later demarcation is an official act undertaken in demarcation proceedings. The petitioner does not bring before this Court any independent material demonstrating that the demarcation was conducted without jurisdiction, without notice, or in violation of mandatory procedure, nor is there a specific pleading of mala fides against any identified officer involved in the demarcation. 16. In the absence of a demonstrated procedural illegality or perversity, and keeping in view that the writ court is not equipped to resolve a contest of measurements by re measuring land or by undertaking a factual adjudication requiring evidence and cross examination, this Court would be slow to discard an official demarcation in favour of an earlier measurement report, particularly when the corporation has relied on the competent revenue authority’s demarcation in the course of scrutiny. The restraint is consistent with Tata Cellular, which limits judicial review to the legality of process, not a substitution of the Court’s view on technical or factual determinations. 17. Accordingly, on the frontage issue alone, no case of manifest illegality or irrationality is made out which would justify setting aside the corporation’s decision in writ jurisdiction. The dispute remains, at highest, a factual contest as to measurement, for which the writ remedy is ill suited. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 15 18. The petitioner’s more substantial objection rests on the brochure condition relating to right of way. The brochure clearly stipulates that the offered land should be situated abutting the right of way line, that the land owner should be in possession from the beginning or edge of the right of way line, and that there should be no other land including Government land between the right of way and the offered plot. 19. The petitioner relies on the entry in the Hal Record of Rights showing Plot No. 1410 as Government Gochar land and asserts that this plot lies between the road and the offered plots. He further contends that the selected candidate has faced encroachment proceedings under the applicable land encroachment law, which, according to the petitioner, is an admission that the strip is Government land and not part of the right of way. 20. The corporation and the revenue authority, on the other hand, contend that though the record continues to show the land as Gochar, it was acquired long ago for improvement of the road and that road connectivity exists, with a reported gap of about 9 metres from the road to the offered land. On that basis, the objection was rejected. 21. Two features are material for the writ court. First, the brochure condition turns crucially on what constitutes the right of way line and whether the intervening strip is within the right of way of the road or remains an independent parcel of Government land separating the offered plots from the right of way. That question ordinarily depends upon acquisition records, road right of way boundaries, and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 16 demarcation of the road corridor vis a vis revenue plots. Those are matters of evidence. 22. Second, it is equally well settled that an entry in revenue records is not conclusive of title. In Suraj Bhan v Financial Commissioner4, the Supreme Court held that entries in revenue records serve fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership, and that questions of title are for the competent civil court to decide. 23. While the present dispute is not a title suit, the principle cautions this Court against treating a single revenue entry as conclusively deciding the legal character of the land for all purposes, particularly where the respondents assert acquisition for road improvement and the contention raises a mixed question of record, vesting, and ground reality. The writ court cannot, on affidavits alone, conclusively decide whether the alleged Gochar strip is legally part of the road right of way or remains a separate Government land parcel falling between the right of way and the offered plot. 24. The decision making is also not mala fide, arbitrary, or contrary to norms as the records make it clear that the corporation has sought clarification from the competent revenue authority and has acted upon that clarification in deciding the complaint. This Court cannot hold, in writ jurisdiction, that such reliance is per se irrational or perverse, especially when the petitioner seeks this Court to undertake a factual adjudication on the exact status and location of the strip and the right of way boundary. This is nothing but crossing the limit of writ jurisdiction. 4 2007 6 SCC 186 Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 23-Apr-2026 13:29:14 Signature Not Verified Page 17 25. Therefore, the right of way objection, though based on an important brochure requirement, cannot be adjudicated as a clean legal issue on undisputed facts. It turns on disputed factual premises and documents that require fuller evidentiary examination. V. CONCLUSION: 26. For the reasons recorded, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned decision rejecting the petitioner’s complaint. 27. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 28. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 17th April, 2026/ CUTTACK