1 2025:CGHC:60467-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 865 of 2025 1 - Ajay Agrawal S/o Late Shri Laxmi Narayan Agrawal Aged About 63 Years The Then Proprietor M/s Chhattisgarh Indane, R/o Korwapara, Behind Trimurty Cinema, Champa District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Through Its General Manager Indian Oil Bhawan, Jail Road, Area Hills, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh) District Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 2 - Chief Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited Area Office - Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Telibandha, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, A-Wing, Shashtri Rajendra Prasad Road, I P Estate, New Delhi, District New Delhi, Delhi 4 - Collector Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh 5 - Vishal Kedia, R/o P.O. Champa, Near Railway Station, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, 4965671 6 - Shatrughan Sahu, R/o Post Nariyara, Tehsil Akaltara, P.S. Pamgarh, Civil And Revenue, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 and 2 : Mr. Raj Shengale, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.12.16 13:05:43 +0530 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 12/12/2025 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the writ appellant against the impugned order dated 07.08.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPC No. 1066 of 2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/ writ appellant has been dismissed. 2. In paragraphs No. 3, 4(e), 5(iv) and 12 of the impugned order dated 07.08.2025, the “WPC No. 1056 of 2018” is corrected and modified as “WPC No. 1066 of 2018” by the order dated 28.08.2025, passed in MCC No. 876 of 2025. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, after termination of LPG distributorship agreement of the petitioner, the respondent/corporation issued an advertisement on 15.11.2011 for distributorship of LPG Gas Cylinders at Champa area, in which the respondent No.5 was one of the applicants. After due process of verification of the documents and completion of various process of selection, the respondent No.5 was selected for LPG Distributorship for Champa area on 10.11.2016, and thereafter, the allotment order in favour of the respondent No.5 was issued on 15.03.2017 and he was appointed as LPG Distributorship of IOCL at Champa area. The petitioner had challenged the allotment letter dated 15.03.2017 on the ground that, the land of khasra No. 1418/2, area 0.158 hectare, over which the LPG Godown of respondent No.5 is situated, had no direct access to any public road and in violation of the policy and guideline of the LPG Distributorship, the respondent No.5 is allotted the LPG Distributorship. It was also claimed that earlier the petitioner had LPG Distributorship at Champa and the dispute of its 3 termination is pending in WPC No. 1276 of 2016. Therefore, the allotment order dated 15.03.2017, issued in favour of respondent No.5 may be quashed. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 07.08.2025 holding that, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the allotment order dated 15.03.2017 issued in favour of the respondent No.5. 5. Learned counsel for the writ appellant would submit that, earlier the LPG Distributorship was granted in favour of the father of petitioner on 08.07.2002 for Champa area and the said LPG Distributorship Agreement was terminated by the respondent/corporation on 16.06.2010 for the alleged violation of clause 24 of the distributorship agreement and the dispute was pending in WPC No. 1276 of 2016. During the pendency of the claim of the petitioner, the allotment order dated 15.03.2017 was issued, that too in violation of clause 8.1(x) of the guidelines of LPG Distributorship dated 01.04.2011. Since, the claim of the petitioner was exists through the writ petition, as he was the earlier LPG Distributor there, he has a locus to challenge the allotment order dated 15.03.2017 issued in favour of the respondent No.5. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance copy supported the impugned order. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 4 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the claim of the petitioner for restoration of his LPG Distributorship for Champa area was negated, as the arbitration award passed against him on 17.11.2015 was not challenged by the petitioner and the same attained finality and also as per the circular of the IOCL, the authorities have declined to revive the termination order of LPG Distributorship passed against the petitioner. Since, the LPG Distributorship of the petitioner came to an end and the IOCL after verifying the entire documents as well as other process of allotment of LPG Distributorship, issued the allotment order of LPG Distributorship on 15.03.2017 for Champa area in favour of the respondent No.5, the petitioner, who was not the applicant in the subsequent advertisement for LPG Distributorship at Champa area, he has no locus to challenge the same. 9. From perusal of the writ petition it also transpires that, the petitioner had challenged the allotment order dated 15.03.2017 on the ground that there was no direct access to any public road from the LPG Godown of the respondent No.5 situated over the land of khasra No. 1418/2, area 0.158 hectare at Champ, however, after following due procedure of allotment under the relevant rules and circulars, allotment order was issued. 10. Upon perusing the impugned order, we noticed that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. 5 11. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by learned Single Judge and the appeal being devoid of merits, liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved