1 / 6 2025:CGHC:55724 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5398 of 2025 Sandeep Rathore S/o Bhagwat Rathore Aged About 28 Years R/o 62, Ward No. 2, Khokhra, District Janjgir-Champa, C.G ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, A Government Of India, Enterprises, Through: its General Manager, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 2 - Head Of Regional Office Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Retail Regional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Regional Manager (Retail) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Retail Regional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary (Revenue), Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Janjgir, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.11.18 10:58:40 +0530 2 / 6 6 - Ramkishan Kashyap S/o Shri Netram Kashyap Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Pendri Ward No. 09, Sadak Para, District Janjgir Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate For Resp. No. 4 & 5/State : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Resp. No.6 : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 14/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs: “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the impugned letter dated 21.07.2025 issued by Chief Regional Manager Retail Bilaspur, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. may kindly be set aside being illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of justice. 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondent authorities to reinstate the LOI dated 09.03.2024 issued in favour of petitioner and proceed with the dealership allotment in accordance with the LOI and originally advertised criteria and further set aside the Letter of intimation of selection of respondent no. 06 dated 18.03.2025 (Annex. P/16) and any other steps pursuant to the letter of intimation be also set aside in the interest of justice. 3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of 3 / 6 the case. ” 2. Mr. Anshul Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to advertisement issued by respondents No. 1 to 3/Oil Company for appointment of Dealer of retail outlet petrol pump at the location- “within 1 k.m. from Jail Chowk Khokhra on Raigarh Bilaspur NH” , petitioner had submitted an application in Group -1. He submitted all the necessary documents along with his application. Candidature of petitioner was found to be eligible for advertised location. Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) was also issued in his favour on 09.03.2024, however, some aggrieved person has filed writ petition before this Court bearing WPC No.4418 of 2024 which was disposed off directing respondents No. 1 to 3 herein to consider the complaint/dispute raised by said petitioner. Accordingly, respondents No. 1 to 3 have again re- considered the candidature of petitioner based on complaint and thereafter vide order dated 21.02.2025, LOI was withdrawn arbitrarily on the wrong pretext that distance of land offered by petitioner is located more than 1 k.m. from Jail Chowk. Said reason assigned by respondents No. 1 to 3/Oil Company is not correct. Earlier, along with application, petitioner had submitted certificate with the signature of Revenue Inspector and Patwari mentioning therein that land of the petitioner is within 1 k.m. from the Jail Chowk and further Sub Divisional Officer (R) vide its memo dated 14.08.2025 has also informed the petitioner that concerned Patwari has requested for supply of nazari map of the land of petitioner and the proposed Jail Chowk map is filed at page No.-63 of the writ petition. As land of petitioner is situated within 1 k.m. as advertised by respondents No. 1 4 / 6 to 3 from proposed Jail Chowk and therefore action of withdrawing of LOI already issued in favour of petitioner is to be interdicted and further direction be issued to respondents No. 1 to 3 to issue LOI in his favour. 3. Mr. Ali Asgar, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/Oil Company would oppose submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that respondent- Oil Company while processing application submitted by petitioner pursuant to advertisement, considering certificate Annexure P-11 submitted by petitioner, have found the petitioner eligible to be appointed as a Dealer of retail outlet petrol pump at advertised location No.1 which is- “within 1 km from Jail Chowk Khokhra on Raigarh Bilaspur NH”. Respondent- Oil Company has relied upon the certificate enclosed along with the application filed by the petitioner. However, when a complaint is filed by one aggrieved person and pursuant thereto he also filed writ petition before this Court and based on the order passed by this Court in that writ petition, inquiry was conducted with regard to distance of advertised location from Jail Chowk in which, it revealed that distance is more than 1 km. i.e. 1116 metre. Petitioner was noticed, given opportunity of hearing and when he could not able to satisfy that distance of land offered by him is situated within 1 k.m. from Jail Chowk, order withdrawing LOI was passed on 21.02.2025. There is no error in decision making process of respondent-Oil Company. He also pointed out that documents which are relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner i.e. letter of Sub Divisional Officer Annexure P-23 and the resolution/proceedings of Village Panchayat would show that petitioner is calculating distance of his land from the proposed Jail Chowk and 5 / 6 not from existing Jail Chowk, which cannot be considered because advertisement issued by respondent mentioning distance of 1 k.m. to be measured from existing Jail Chowk where government sign board is installed. 4. Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.6 supports submission of learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with this writ petition. 6. It is not in dispute that respondents No. 1 to 3 issued an advertisement for appointment of Dealer for different locations advertised therein including location within 1 k.m. from Jail Chowk Khokhra on Raigarh - Bilaspur National Highway. Certificate which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner Annexure P-11 prima facie appears to have been issued by Sarpanch of Village Panchayat under his signature and not by any revenue authority. Though signature of Revenue Inspector and Halka Patwari are appearing in the certificate (Annexure P-11), however, from perusal of certificate it is reflecting that they have made endorsement on the certificate issued by Sarpanch. This is not based on measurement done by Revenue Officials or any other authorized person. Document which is further relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner i.e. Annexure P-21 and Annexure P-23 itself makes clear that distance which the petitioner is pressing upon is not from existing Jail Chowk but from proposed Jail Chowk. This I say so because in one of document Ex.P-21 it is mentioned that Village Panchayat proposed to name Nahar Chowk as Jail Chowk. Further, the document Ex.P-22 would demonstrate that distance of Khokhra Chowk where presently 6 / 6 board of Ambedkar Chowk is installed and Munund Chowk which is known as Jail Chowk, is about 330 metres. From the documents which is relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner itself it s clear that petitioner is measuring the land from proposed Jail Chowk and not from existing Jail Chowk and based upon which he is claiming that distance of his land is within 1 km. from the proposed Jail Chowk which cannot be accepted and appreciated. Respondents No. 1 to 3 is a Public Sector Company. It has issued an advertisement for appointment of Dealer of retail outlet mentioning location in specific terms, which means that location advertised by the respondent Oil Company is based on actual existing earmarked place. i.e. existing Jail Chowk. Land of the petitioner is not falling within 1 k.m. from existing Jail Chowk as evident from the case as projected by petitioner and therefore I do not find any error or irregularity in decision making process of respondents No. 1 to 3 in re-considering eligibility of petitioner based on complaint received and arriving at conclusion that land /plot offered by petitioner is situated more than 1 km away from the advertised location. 7. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision making process of respondent- Oil Company to reject the candidature of petitioner. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen