HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28849 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE AVNISH SAXENA, J. 1. Mr. Komal Mehrotra, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 (the oil company). He submits, affidavit dated 12th September, 2025 was filed pursuant to instructions received on the writ petition moved. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client has filed rejoinder dated 14th September, 2025. Mr. Vivek Chaturvedi, learned advocate appears on behalf of private respondent no. 3, the allottee of the retail outlet (RO). 2. For purpose of petitioner's case, paragraph-1 from order dated 25th August, 2025 is reproduced below. "1. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, the oil company illegally selected private respondent no.3 as dealer of the retail outlet (RO). He draws attention to page 98 to demonstrate that closing date was 17th October, 2023. His client obtained information that partition of the land offered took place thereafter on 6th December, 2024. Furthermore and without prejudice, the lease deed was not executed by all the co-owners." 3. Mr. Mehrotra draws attention to partition deed dated 24th July, 2007 disclosed by aforesaid affidavit to submit, there was mutual Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Kumar Rai, Sanjeev Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Komal Mehrotra, Vikalp Kumar Rai, Vivek Chaturvedi Manjeet Yadav .....Petitioner(s) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) partition between owners of the land, giving particulars of their respective shares. Some of such co-owners sold away their shares. The retaining co-owners joined together to lease out their aggregate land to respondent no. 3. Initially her candidature had been rejected but upon interference by this Court on said respondent's Writ-C no. 21737 of 2024 on order dated 21st October, 2024, said respondent was allowed opportunity and she clarified the position. The buyers also confirmed that they had no interest in the land leased. In the circumstances, her candidature was accepted and dealership of the RO accordingly allotted. He opposes the writ petition. Mr. Chaturvedi adopts submissions made by Mr. Mehrotra. 4. Mr. Singh in reply draws attention to said deed dated 24th July, 2007 and submits firstly, date of the deed is over written. There should be no reliance placed on it. He then draws attention to communication dated 5th May, 2025 carrying answer given by the oil company to query made under Right to Information Act, 2005. A sentence relied upon in the communication is reproduced below. "The ADM vide decision Vaad No. T202415060405565 dt. 06.12.2024 partitioned the land as stated above since none of the owners of the land disputed the partition suit." It is clear from above answer that partition happened on 6th December, 2024, after date of the application and, therefore, private respondent no. 3 stood disqualified on not complying with condition (a) in the guidelines. Said guideline is reproduced below. "(a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on Long-term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co- owners of the offered plot. Incase lease deed is not executed by all co-owners; such lease deed shall be treated as invalid." WRIC No. 28849 of 2025 2 He relies on view taken by Division Bench of this Court in Aditya Vikram Yadav vs. Union of India reported in 2024 (4) AWC 3834, paragraphs 11 to 14. 5. We find petitioner himself had disclosed mutual partition deed dated 24th July, 2007, introduced by paragraph-16 wherein there is no allegation of over writing. Furthermore, there are hand written endorsements appearing in copy of the deed bearing dates in year 2007. We have no reason to doubt genuineness of the document. 6. The oil company's response to query made saying that the Additional District Magistrate vide decision dated 6th December, 2024 partitioned the land since none of the owners of the land disputed the partition suit, falls in line and is confirmation of mutual partition earlier done by said deed dated 24th July, 2007. Considering the oil company's subsequent position of having allotted the RO to private respondent no. 3 after having initially rejected her candidature, we are convinced present situation does not warrant further enquiry on facts by the writ Court. 7. We find, Aditya Vikram Yadav (supra) does not come to aid of petitioner. Paragraph 11 from the judgment is reproduced below. “11. From all that has been narrated hereinabove, it is clear that law on the issue regarding the lease of the offered land is well settled, i.e., for the successful application of the award of retail dealership outlet, it is incumbent upon the applicant that he/she must have a lease deed duly executed by all the co-sharers of the offered land on the date of the application.” We have not been shown on undisputed facts that petitioner’s lease deed suffered infirmity. After initial rejection, contention of the oil company is, the retaining co-owners having authority of title joined together to grant lease to private respondent no.3. Those co-owners, who had sold away their shares to their respective purchasers, had not joined. WRIC No. 28849 of 2025 3 8. In view of aforesaid, the writ petition is found to be without merit. It is dismissed. September 16, 2025 Shiraz WRIC No. 28849 of 2025 4 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad