1 2026:CGHC:4843-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 61 of 2026 Shrimati Varsha Mehta W/o Dinesh Mehta Aged About 56 Years R/o S.M. - 79 Padmanabhpur, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, A-Wing, Shashtri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi. 2 - Director (Marketing) Omc Section, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, A-Wing Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 3 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9 Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra 4 - Divisional Head Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur Division, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Vip Road Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Divisional Retails Sales Head Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur Division, Indian Oil Bhawan, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Vip Road Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Steel Authority Of India Through Director Incharge, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ---- Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Rohan Shukla, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSGI For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.02 19:32:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 29/01/2026 1. This writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2007 has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1017 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the rejection of her candidature for allotment of retail outlet dealership at the advertised location was dismissed. The appellant contends that the impugned order suffers from errors apparent on the face of record, non-appreciation of material facts, and misapplication of the applicable policy governing allotment of land vested in Bhilai Steel Plant.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant applied for appointment as a retail outlet dealer pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 issued by respondent Nos. 2 to 5 for the location “On Right Hand Side from Talpuri Chowk to Main Gate CISF RTC Bhilai on SH-22, Durg–Patan Road”. It is an admitted position that the advertised land is vested in Bhilai Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited. The appellant submitted her application on 22.09.2023 under the Group-2 category, disclosing that the ownership of the land vests with Bhilai Steel Plant, and her candidature was provisionally found eligible during scrutiny. Thereafter, the appellant was called upon to submit supporting documents; however, by 3 communication dated 24.05.2024, her candidature was rejected on the ground that she had failed to submit documents evidencing ownership or leasehold rights over the advertised land. The appellant’s case is that, as per the policy of Bhilai Steel Plant, land vested in it cannot be sold to private individuals and lease can be granted only upon a request made by the concerned Oil Marketing Company. In support of her contention, the appellant relied upon communications issued by Bhilai Steel Plant clarifying that applications for lease for petrol pumps are required to be initiated by Oil Marketing Companies and not by private applicants. 3. Aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, the appellant approached this Court by filing WPC No. 1017 of 2025. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 03.11.2025, dismissed the writ petition holding that possession of land by way of ownership or leasehold rights was an essential eligibility condition under the dealership brochure and that the appellant did not fulfill the said requirement. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred the present writ appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law and on facts in dismissing the writ petition by holding that the appellant did not possess the land either by ownership or leasehold rights. It is contended that the appellant had made a truthful and complete disclosure in her application by categorizing the land under Group-2 and clearly stating that the ownership of the advertised location vests with Bhilai Steel Plant. There was neither any 4 suppression nor misrepresentation on the part of the appellant, and the finding that the appellant furnished incorrect particulars regarding land ownership is unsustainable. It is further submitted that the rejection of the appellant’s candidature proceeds on an impossible and non-existent requirement. As per the established policy and official communications of Bhilai Steel Plant, land vested in it can be leased for establishment of petrol pumps only upon a request made by the concerned Oil Marketing Company, and not by a private individual. Therefore, insisting upon production of a lease deed or leasehold document by the appellant, when she was legally incapable of obtaining the same without initiation by IOCL, is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles that the law does not compel a person to perform an impossible act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further contends that the respondent authorities, having issued the advertisement with full knowledge that the advertised land belongs to Bhilai Steel Plant, cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate by rejecting the appellant’s candidature on the ground of absence of lease documents. It is submitted that similarly situated retail outlets have been established on Bhilai Steel Plant land through leases obtained by Oil Marketing Companies, and denial of the same treatment to the appellant is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The impugned rejection and the order of the learned Single Judge are therefore liable to be set aside. 5 6. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectfully submits that the writ appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed, as the appellant admittedly failed to satisfy an essential and mandatory eligibility condition prescribed under the dealership brochure, namely, availability of land by way of ownership or valid leasehold rights at the time stipulated in the selection process. Mere disclosure that the land vests in Bhilai Steel Plant does not dispense with the requirement of producing legally enforceable rights over the advertised site, and provisional eligibility during scrutiny cannot confer any vested right contrary to the governing policy. It is further submitted that the dealership guidelines apply uniformly to all applicants and no exception is carved out for land belonging to public sector undertakings; therefore, the appellant cannot seek relaxation on equitable considerations. The contention of “impossibility” is misconceived, as the onus to arrange land or demonstrate compliance squarely lies on the applicant, and the Oil Marketing Company is not obliged to initiate a lease process unless and until a candidate fulfills all eligibility criteria. The learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the factual and legal position, and no arbitrariness, discrimination, or violation of constitutional rights is made out so as to warrant interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 submits that the writ appeal is wholly misconceived and the rejection of the appellant’s candidature is strictly in accordance with the dealership brochure and 6 the selection guidelines governing retail outlet allotment. It is contended that possession of land by way of ownership or a valid registered lease for the advertised location within the prescribed timeline is a fundamental eligibility condition, and mere disclosure that the land belongs to Bhilai Steel Plant does not satisfy this requirement. The appellant neither held any legal right over the land nor produced any document evidencing leasehold interest, and therefore her candidature was rightly rejected at the land evaluation stage. It is further submitted that the Oil Marketing Company cannot be compelled to initiate a lease process with a third party land-owning authority unless a candidate is found fully eligible under the brochure, and no vested or enforceable right accrues to an applicant on the basis of provisional scrutiny alone. The selection process has been conducted in a transparent, uniform, and non-discriminatory manner, and the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere, warranting no indulgence by this Hon’ble Court in the present appeal. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that Bhilai Steel Plant, a unit of Steel Authority of India Limited, is neither the selecting authority nor an implementing agency in the process of allotment of retail outlet dealership, and its role is confined solely to the management of land vested in it in accordance with its internal policies and statutory framework. It is contended that as per the established policy of Bhilai Steel Plant, land cannot be transferred or leased to private individuals for establishment of petrol pumps, and any proposal for leasing such land can be considered only upon a formal request 7 made by the concerned Oil Marketing Company, subject to feasibility and approval by the competent authority. In the present case, no such request was ever received from respondents No. 3 to 5, and therefore no right, assurance, or entitlement accrued in favour of the appellant. Respondent No. 6 has acted strictly in accordance with its policy and cannot be faulted for the appellant’s non-fulfilment of eligibility conditions under the dealership guidelines, nor can it be compelled to deviate from its land-allotment policy in the absence of a valid and lawful proposal. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 10. The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant fulfilled the mandatory eligibility condition relating to availability of land, as prescribed under the dealership brochure, for allotment of a retail outlet dealership. It is not in dispute that the advertised land vests in Bhilai Steel Plant and that the appellant neither owned the said land nor held any valid lease or enforceable right over it within the stipulated timeframe. The dealership guidelines unequivocally require an applicant to have ownership or registered leasehold rights over the offered land, and mere disclosure of third-party ownership, howsoever bona fide, cannot be construed as compliance with this essential condition. Provisional acceptance of the application at the scrutiny stage did not confer any vested right upon the appellant, nor did it estop the authorities from rejecting the candidature upon detailed verification. The contention that the requirement was impossible to 8 fulfil cannot be accepted, as the onus to meet eligibility conditions squarely lies on the applicant, and no obligation is cast upon the Oil Marketing Companies to initiate lease proceedings with a land-owning authority unless a candidate is otherwise found eligible. We find that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the factual matrix and the governing policy, and no arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of constitutional provisions is made out. 11. 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. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the writ appeal. The impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1017 of 2025 does not suffer from any error of law or perversity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. 13. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved