1 2025:CGHC:56862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6116 of 2025 1 - Nitesh Kumar Pusam S/o Brijram Pusam, Aged About 23 Years R/o B.R. Pusam Niwas, Ward No. 4, Kukdur, Pandaria, District Kabirdham C.G. 491559 ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (A Government Of India Enterprise) Having Its Registered Office At Bharat Bhavan, 4 And 6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Post Box No. 688, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001 2 - Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bilaspur Territory Office, Old Chhattisgarh Housing Board Building, Kalpana Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur C.G. 495001 3 - Head Of Territory Office, Bilaspur Territory Office, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Old Chhattisgarh Housing Board Building, Kalpana Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur C.G. 495001 4 - Territory Manager, Bilaspur Territory Office, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Old Chhattisgarh Housing Board Building, Kalpana Vihar, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur C.G. 495001 5 - Krishna Kumar Pusam C/o Shri Teerathram Pusam R/o Post- Putputa, Tehsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham C.G. 491559 6 - Balram Pusam C/o Shri Teerathram Pusam, R/o Post- Putputa, Tehsil Pandaria, District Kabirdham C.G. 491559 7 - Neha Pusam D/o Brijram Pusam, Aged About 28 Years R/o B.R. Pusam Niwas, Ward No. 4, Kukdur, Pandaria, District Kabirdham C.G. 491559 2 8 - State Head (Retail), Madhya Pradesh And Chhattisgarh, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (Bpcl) Office Complex, A- Block Gautam Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, Pincode- 462023 ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4 & 8 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 24 /11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ to the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 & 8 to recall and/or quash/cancel the decision taken vide Impugned Email Communication dated 01.07.2025 [Annexure P/1 (Colly)] & the Impugned Decision conveyed to the Petitioner vide Letter dated 28.08.2025 [Annexure P/1 (Colly)] wherein a decision has been taken to cancel the Petitioner's candidature in relation to award of Retail Outlet of Petrol Pump, in the interest of justice. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly issue appropriate writ to the Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 8 to provide the Petitioner with all the details of the investigation proceedings initiated on the basis of the Complaint dated 23.01.2024 and direct the Respondent Oil Marketing Company to conduct a de novo investigation by giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to be heard in the investigation proceedings, in the interest of justice.. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate, according to facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement on 20.06.2023 inviting application from eligible candidates for allotment of retail outlet dealership in different locations within the State of Chhattisgarh as mentioned therein. Pursuant thereto, Petitioner submitted an application for a location at Serial No. 292 in the advertisement i.e. within 02 kilometers from Kukdur Police Station on State Highway – 05 (Pandariya - Shahdol Road), District – Kabirdham. Along with application, petitioner submitted all relevant documents clearly mentioning that the land which is being offered is bearing Khasra No. 3 113/1/क/1 admeasuring 9830 sq. meters recorded in the name of his father Brijram Pusan. Petitioner has been shortlisted and selected as Retail Outlet Dealer vide communication dated 02.01.2024 and pursuant thereto petitioner deposited requisite security deposit as also other documents. However, based on complaint dated 23.1.2024 submitted by Respondents No. 5 and 6, respondent Corporation vide order impugned canceled the allotment of retail outlet dealership made in favour of petitioner on the ground that land offered by petitioner for establishment of retail outlet in question, is also offered by respondent No.7. He contended that the entire premise for cancellation of allotment of retail outlet in favour of petitioner is non-existent. Referring to sub-clause (c) of Clause 4 of the Brochure- Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, he submits that this clause contains an exception, according to which, if the plot having the same land details are offered by different applicants, it will not be liable for rejection provided that there is no overlapping of any kind and there is clear demarcation of land offered by them. 3. Petitioner and Respondent No.7 are brother and sister; total area of Khasra No.113/1/Ka/1 is 9830 sq. meters, which is ancestral land, is much larger than the area required for establishment of retail outlet i.e. 1225 sq. meter and thus there is no question of overlapping of land even if it is offered by two candidates i.e. Respondents No.7 and petitioner. Further, respondent No.7 submitted an application before respondent No.4, sister of petitioner, that the land in question is joint holding and she is having no objection in allotment of retail outlet dealership in favour of petitioner nor she will raise any grievances at any stage in this regard. Hence, the case of petitioner falls within the exception to Clause-4 of the Brochure and embargo contained in this clause would not be attracted to present case. He further submits that reasonable opportunity of hearing 4 has not been provided to petitioner during investigation proceeding as also before passing the impugned order of cancellation of allotment. On the aforesaid grounds, he prays that the impugned action of respondent corporation of canceling the candidature of petitioner for award of retail outlet at the place in question be interferred. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4 & 8 would oppose the submission of counsel for the petitioner and would submit that according the pleadings made in the writ petition as also, the submission of the counsel for petitioner, there is no dispute that the land offered by the petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 are one and same. He also contended that both the applicants have offered the land recorded in the name of their father i.e. Brijram Pusan. Petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 are brother and sister. He also submits that in the brochure for selection of the dealers, it is clearly mentioned that the same land, with the details of same khasra number can be entertained however, in Clause VI (p) Note 1 (c), there is clear mention that the land offered by two applicants of same Khasra Number shall not overlap with each other. Meaning thereby, the land offered by both the applicants should be differently identified with the same specification as per the requirement of the advertisement. In the advertisement which is subject matter of writ petition, the requirement of land is 35 X 35, meaning thereby that, 35 meters towards the road side (wide) and 35 meters deep. The map which is forming part of the writ petition filed by the petitioner clearly demonstrates that the land recorded in the name of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 is not having the width of 70 meters on the road, but its width is only 38 meters and therefore, after considering the application of one of the applicant as 35 meters towards the road, only 03 meters land remains towards the road side of the other applicant from which, it is 5 clearly appearing that the land offered by both the applicants are overlapping to each other. 5. He next contended that the submission of counsel for the petitioner that, enquiry conducted by the senior officials of Respondent No. 1, is behind the back of petitioner is not correct. At the time of spot verification, petitioner along with others were present and the spot verification map also bears signature of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 have considered the application filed by the petitioner along with the complaint in accordance with the procedure as provided under the brochure. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 are brother and sister. In both the applications, they have offered land, recorded in the name of their father i.e. Brijram Pusan. The khasra number of the land offered by both of them is also same. Perusal of the advertisement (Annexure P/2) at Page No. 44 at Serial No. 292, description of the land as required is 35 meters wide and 35 meters deep and selection is to be made by draw of lots. Along with the writ petition, petitioner has also submitted a map prepared by the revenue officials, perusal of which would show that the land which is offered is recorded in the name of Brijram Pusan, who is father of the petitioner and Respondent No. 7 Khasra No. 113/1/क/1 is 38 meters vide and about 58 meters deep. In all the maps which is enclosed along with the writ petition, the land of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 appears to be only 38 meters wide on the road and having the depth of 58 meters. Remaining land recorded in the name of their father is behind the said land. On both the sides, the offered land is owned by some other persons. 6 8. From the contents of the advertisement, it is clear that the land if offered by two applicants of same khasra number, having 35 meters of each of the plot offered, then the application of both the applicants can be considered on merits and offering of the land of same khasra number cannot be a ground for its rejection. However, in the case at hand, except the 38 meter wide on the road (i.e. in the front side), remaining land of the father of the petitioner and the Respondent No. 7 is behind it and therefore, in the opinion of this Court, land offered by petitioner and Respondent No. 7 is overlapping as such, petitioner is not fulfilling the clauses/conditions as mentioned in the brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets. 9. Clause VI (p) Note 1 (c) which is relevant in the facts of the case and hence, it is extracted below for ready and reference:- “c. The same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular RO location against an advertisement. In case more than one application is received offering the same piece of land all such applications would be rejected and allotment, if made, would be liable for cancellation. This aspect shall be verified only upon receipt of written information by the OMC. However, if plots having same land details (Khasra / Gatta / Khatauni / Survey / Plot / Dag / Gut No. etc.) are offered by different applicants, such cases will not be liable for rejection provided there is no overlap of any kind and there is clear demarcation of land offered by them.” 10.Perusal of the aforementioned clause would make it clear that the situation which is argued by the counsel for petitioner has already been taken note of by the respondents and have clearly mentioned that if the land offered is not overlapping, then the land of same khasra number can be considered of two applicants. 11.So far as the submission of counsel for the petitioner, that the proceedings have been initiated behind the back of the petitioner, in view 7 of the submissions of counsel for the Respondent as also the inspection report prepared by the two officials of the Respondent would show that at the time of preparing of spot map of the land of the petitioner, petitioner was present and the document, at page no. 153 bears his signature and therefore, the submission of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not noticed at the time of spot inspection and it was conducted behind its back is not sustainable. 12.For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 13.Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY