IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11252 of 2024 Decided on 04th July, 2025 Nipun Yadav and another …Petitioners Versus Indian Oil Corporation limited and another …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the e-mail communication dated 29.02.2024 whereby the candidatures of the petitioners have been cancelled illegally and arbitrarily without following due process of law. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for the allotment of regular/retail dealership at Mohal Jispa, Manali-Leh Highway, Tehsil Lahaul, District Lahaul and Spiti, H.P.” 2 2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners in response to an advertisement issued by the respondent-Corporation for setting up of a petrol pump at Jispa, Manali-Leh, Highway, Tehsil Lahaul, District Lahaul and Spiti, H.P., applied for allotment of petrol pump. Alongwith the petitioners, 10 other applicants also applied for the allotment of petrol pump. Though the copy of the advertisement, to which, the petitioners responded, has not been appended either with the writ petition or with the reply, however, the Court stands informed that there were three Groups, stipulated in the advertisement and the petitioners, who belong to Scheduled Tribes Category, applied under Group-1. Under Group-2, also one candidate had applied and under Group-3, nine candidates applied. 3. Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioners is that though, initially, in terms of Annexure P-4, the petitioners were informed that in the draw of lots for allotment of retail outlet dealership for the location Mohal Jispa, they stood provisionally selected, but later on, their candidature was cancelled in terms of Annexure P-7, dated 29.02.2024, on the ground that the requisite 3 documents, which they were called upon to submit, were not submitted by them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the provisional selection of the petitioners, when they received the communication from the respondent-Corporation to submit the documents required by them, they were not able to upload some of the documents due to technical issues. Yet, despite this, their candidature was rejected by the respondents, which act of the respondents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the Oil Corporation submitted that the provisional selection of the petitioners in terms of Annexure P-4 was only a preliminary intimation towards the provisional selection of the petitioners for retail outlet dealership, however, the award thereof was subject to the compliance of terms and conditions of the Corporation in this regard. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in terms of the documents annexed with the reply, it was apparent and evident that despite opportunities granted to the petitioners to furnish information as was required by the Corporation, as they failed to do so, the Corporation had no option or choice but to 4 cancel the candidature of the petitioners, which was rightly done vide communication dated 29.02.2024, as mandatory documents required to be submitted by the petitioners were not submitted. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were selected under Group-1 provisionally for the allotment of the retail outlet. It is also not in dispute that the documents which were sought from the petitioners by the respondents were not provided to the respondents by the petitioners. In fact, this is admitted by the petitioners and it is also apparent and evident from Annexure P-6 appended with the writ petition, in terms whereof, vide e-mail dated 05.01.2024, reasons stand spelled out by the petitioners why documents could not be made available by the petitioners to the Corporation by the due date. 8. In terms of the impugned order, the candidature of the petitioners stands rejected on the ground that the documents required were not provided by the petitioners to the respondents within time. 5 9. In terms of the annexures, which have been appended with the writ petition, it is evident that an endeavor was made by the petitioners to provide documents to the respondents on 07.03.2024 i.e. after the issuance of the impugned communication. This is evident from Annexure P-8, which demonstrates the fact that as on the date when the candidature of the petitioners was rejected by the Corporation, complete documents, as were demanded by the Corporation, were not provided by the petitioners to the Corporation. 10. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, as the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners was on account of the omissions, which were committed by the petitioners, for which the respondent-Corporation cannot be faulted with, more so, as there were other applicants in line, may be in Group-2 and Group-3, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 04, 2025 (Vinod)