1 2025:CGHC:11548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 697 of 2020 Manish Kumar Yadav S/o Maheshwar Prasad Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Block Colony Main Road Lailunga, Police Station And Tahsil Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Its Secretary, Department of Ministry of Petroleum And Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 (India). 2 - Territory Manager (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 46, Shaheed Veer Narayan Singh Bhawan, Nagar Ghari Chowk, Raipur, Police Station Golbazar, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Premchand Gupta Aged About 30 Years R/o Near High School Kotba, Police Station Kotba, Tahsil Patthalgaon, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. -- Respondents ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioners : Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate appears along with Shri Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate. For UOI/Respondent No.1 : Shri Rishabh Dev Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.K. Mishra D.S.G. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Saurabh Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Shri Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 07.03.2025 1. By virtue of this petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashment of the order dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), whereby, his complaint made on 09.07.2019 (Annexure-P-5), was rejected by Respondent No.2- SUNITA GOSWAMI Digitally signed by SUNITA GOSWAMI Date: 2025.03.07 19:15:33 +0530 2 Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and, consequent upon issuance of LOI in favour of Respondent No.3- Anil Kumar Gupta, on 31.01.2020 (Annexure R-3/1). 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.2- Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) on 14.12.2018, for allotment of retail outlet for the location between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No. 20 on State Highway No.4 (SH-04) of District Jashpur under the ‘Regular Marketing Plan’ in ‘Open Category’ and, applications were received in Group-1 category, from the Petitioner and the Respondent No.3 and thereafter, a Draw Of Lot (DOL) for the said location was held on 18.06.2019, wherein, the Respondent No.3 - Anil Kumar Gupta, was selected in online draw and intimation was sent to him to submit Initial Security Deposit (ISD). It appears further that after completion of due formalities in this regard, the alleged LOI (Annexure R-3/1) was issued in favour of Respondent No.3- Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020, but, before that a complaint was made by the Petitioner on 09.07.2019 (Annexure P-5) before the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, as the land held by Respondent No.3 is not situated of State Highway No.4. 3. In order to ascertain the alleged fact, the Territory Manager (BPCL) has sought the information from the office of the Executive Engineer of Public Works Department, who vide its letter dated 03.12.2019 (Annexure R-2/1), informed that till 31.12.2018, the location between KM Stone No.18 to KM Stone No.20 is SH-04 and named presently as SH-17. It, thus, appears based upon the said information (R-2/1) 3 furnished by the office of the Executive Engineer P.W.D., Division Pathhalgaon, District Jashpur, that the said location till 31.12.2018 is SH-04, i.e. when the alleged advertisement was issued on 14.12.2018 and, therefore, the grievance as was raised by the Petitioner, vide his alleged complaint (Annexure P-5) dated 09.07.2019 was rejected vide order impugned dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) and only after the redressal of his grievance by the Competent Authority, the LOI (Annexure R-3/1) has been issued in favour of Respondent No. 3- Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020. 4. Although, the Petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court, a notification that was issued by the State Government on 2nd May, 2019, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (iii) of the Clause 3, Chapter-II of the Chhattisgarh State Rajamarg Adhiniyam, 2003 (No.12 of 2003), showing the alleged land held by Respondent No.3 covered in Sr. No.17, i.e. “Kunkuri-Batauli-Bageecha-Raikera-Lavakera-Kotha- Lailunga-Gharghoda-Chhaal Road”, but, a bare perusal of it, would, however, show that it was only a proposal that was made by the State Government in this regard. No reliance, therefore, could be placed upon it. 5. In view of the aforesaid background, the Respondent No.2- Territory Manager (Retail) has not committed any illegality in rejecting the alleged complaint raised by the Petitioner vide order impugned dated 24.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) and, consequent upon the issuance of LOI (Annexure R-3/1) in favour of the Respondent No.3 -Anil Kumar Gupta on 31.01.2020, so as to call of any interference in this petition. 4 6. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE sunita