1 / 3 2025:CGHC:56162 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6012 of 2025 • Elius John Tirkey S/o Anjelus Tirkey Aged About 35 Years R/o 8/109, Lambi Toli, Kunkuri, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Through Its Chief Regional Manager, Regional Office, First Floor Bajpais Pavallion, Opposite Gumber Petrol Pump, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Abarancia Tigga S/o Julius Tigga Illage Baliyadohar, Karichapar, Post Raikera, Tahsil- Kunkuri, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. C.J. K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 18/11/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the letter dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) 10.2 that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the petitioner eligible for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at within 1 kilometer of village Charaidand, Tahsil Kunkuri on SH District Jashpur, C.G. 10.3 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 not to consider the respondent no. 2 for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at within 1 kilometer of village Charaidand, Tahsil Kunkuri on SH District Jashpur, C.G. ALFIZA BAIG Digitally signed by ALFIZA BAIG Date: 2025.11.20 11:03:22 +0530 2 / 3 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondents for appointment of dealers at different locations within the State of Chhattisgarh as mentioned therein, petitioner submitted an application for his appointment as dealer of the retail outlet for the location as mentioned at serial number 134 “within 1KM of village Charaidand Tahsil Kunkuri on State Highway”. Petitioner submitted an application as Group-2 applicant along with others. Petitioner was shortlisted and thereafter at the second stage of proceedings of selection/ appointment of dealers, he has been declared ineligible vide Annexure P-1 recording reason that “the land is in tahsil Duldula and not in tahsil Kunkuri. He contended that the area of Chiraidand where the retail outlet is to be installed falls within the tehsil Duldula and not Kunkuri as per revenue records and therefore decision of respondents in declaring the petitioner to be ineligible is erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that there is no dispute with regard to location advertised at serial number 134 mentioning within 1KM of village Chiranidand, Tahsil Kunkuri. However, on the objection raised by petitioner about falling of area of village Chiraidand in tahsil Duldula and after getting knowledge, necessary steps have been taken for cancellation of advertised location at serial number 134 by the respondents. He also submits that the Bilaspur Regional office wrote a letter to head office of respondents about taking steps for initiating E-File Note of cancelling the location, subject matter of the writ petition and in the aforesaid facts of the case nothing remains for adjudication of this case. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that as the respondents are already issued notification and petitioner has submitted documents showing his land within 1KM of village Chiraidand and therefore petitioner’s candidature ought to have been considered by the respondents. 3 / 3 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the respondents have advertised location at serial number 134 “within 1KM of village Chiraidand tehsil Kunkuri at State highway”. From the arguments raised by counsel for petitioner it is apparent that village Chiraidand falls within the territorial jurisdiction of tehsil Duldula and not in tehsil Kunkuri. It is also submission of learned counsel for respondents that after getting knowledge that village Chiraidand, tehsil Kunkuri has wrongly been mentioned in the advertisement, they have taken steps for cancellation of location mentioned at serial number 134 and it may be readvertised in future. Steps taken by the respondents cannot be said to be erroneous or arbitrary. If in the advertisement correct location is published or mentioned, there may have chances that some other persons could have also made application for his appointment as dealer of the retail outlet in that location. 7. For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any good ground to admit this petition and therefore, it is dismissed at admission stage. 8. However, the respondents may take decision for re-advertisement of the location which they have cancelled only due to typographical error of the particulars of the place mentioned in advertisement at the earliest. sd/-- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE