1 2026:HHC:34479 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 393 of 2020 Decided on: 17.08.2026 Vinod Kumar …..Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Corporation and others ..Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate and Ms. Aafreen Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. L.N.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Dewa Nand Sharma, Advocate, for the intervener. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent-Indian Oil Corporation has rejected the land offered by the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet in question. Hence, the grievance. 2. Heard and considered the case file. 2(i). On 25.11.2018, the respondents issued a notice for appointment of regular/ rural retail outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership in State of H.P. One such 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:34479 advertised location was ‘Nimla, National Highway-305, between Luhri- Anni Road, District Kullu’. The application could be furnished by 24.12.2018. Petitioner alongwith others applied for the site in question. Petitioner moved his application on 21.12.2018. The draw of lots for selection of retail outlet dealership of above location was held by the respondents on 04.02.2019. The petitioner was declared selected in the aforesaid draw of lots. Communication was accordingly addressed to him by the respondents on 06.02.2019. It was also clarified therein by the respondents that petitioner’s selection is only a preliminary intimation, the award of dealership would be subject to compliance of prescribed terms and conditions. The respondents addressed a separate communication to the petitioner of the even date requiring him to furnish several documents detailed therein. The details of offered land alongwith dimensions was also to be submitted to the respondents. 2(ii). Petitioner furnished the requisite documents including the details of land offered by him. The petitioner had offered land at Khata Khatauni No.627/733 min, Khasra No.5056, measuring 0-11-16 bighas statedly at Village Nimla, Phati Dingidhar, Tehsil Anni, District 3 2026:HHC:34479 Kullu. This was affirmed by him on 21.12.2018. Petitioner also furnished a certificate dated 02.04.2019 issued by the Patwari, Patwar Circle, Dingidhar, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P. inter alia to the effect that aforesaid land “is situated within village Nimla”. The respondents scheduled the visit of Land Evaluation Committee for verifying evaluating the land offered by the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet. 2(iii). Subsequently, the respondents addressed office letter dated 19.10.2019 to the Tehsildar, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu seeking clarification on following two points: “1. Whether offered land bearing Khatauni No.700/678, Khasra No.5056, Mohal Dingidhar, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu is falling in Nimla, NH- 305, between Luhri- Anni Road, District Kullu. 2. And if it is falling in the advertised area/ stretch i.e. Nimla, NH-305 between Luhri- Anni Road District Kullu, a certificate may please be provided.” In response to above office letter, concerned Tehsildar vide office letter dated 19.11.2019 in-turn sought his own clarification about the distance required between the proposed retail outlet and the stretch of the road. 4 2026:HHC:34479 2(iv). On 11.01.2020, the respondents informed the petitioner that Land Evaluation Committee had visited the site offered by him on 09.10.2019 and found the same non-compliant to the required norms as the offered land did not fall in the advertised area. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive relief:- “(i). That a writ in nature of certiorari may kindly be issued and the impugned rejection of the land of the petitioner from the advertised area i.e. “Nimla, NH-305, between Luhri- Anni Road, District Kullu.” (Annexure P-8) may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set- aside and the respondent corporation may kindly be directed to issue letter of intent in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. Vide order dated 20.01.2020 passed in the writ petition, the allocation of the retail outlet was made subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Another order passed in this writ petition that needs to be noticed is dated 19.11.2025 whereunder a Court Commissioner was appointed to report after spot inspection as to whether the site offered by the petitioner for the purpose of setting up of petrol pump was in consonance with advertised location. Pursuant to this order, the Court Commissioner furnished his report at Pages 159 to 186 of the paper book. The Court 5 2026:HHC:34479 Commissioner has concluded that the land offered by the petitioner for the purpose of the setting of petrol pump is not as per the advertisement. The land/ site offered by the petitioner for setting up of petrol pump does not fall on NH-305 between Luhri- Anni Road. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that concerned Patwari, Patwar Circle, Dingidhar had issued certificate on 02.04.2019 certifying that land offered by the petitioner was situated within village Nimla; During pendency of this writ petition, another certificate was issued by Patwari, Patwar Circle, Dingidhar, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu and endorsed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Anni on 09.02.2021 again to the effect that land offered by the petitioner comes under village Nimla and same was placed on record. 4. From the documents placed on record as also the pleadings, it cannot be said that land offered by the petitioner conforms to the location advertised by respondent- corporation for setting up the retail outlet. The Tehsildar, Anni has himself clarified this issue in his supplementary affidavit dated 06.01.2023 wherein he has stated that land offered by the petitioner falls in Fatti (Revenue Village) Dingidhar, Koti Sirigarh, Tehsil Anni, 6 2026:HHC:34479 District Kullu, H.P.; The aforesaid land offered by the petitioner is situated at a distance of 1.7K.m from Nimla towards Sainj on the left side at a place locally known as Bhargai; Petitioner’s land is at a distance of approximately 14 feet (minimum) and 28 feet (maximum) from the road i.e. NH-305. The Court Commissioner has also clarified in his report that land offered by the petitioner is in Bhargai Fatti Dingidhar, which is situated about 1.5 K.m from Khasra No.2670 Nimla. There exits forest land between Barghai and Nimla. Hence, boundaries between Barghai and Nimla cannot be ascertained and settlement has not been carried out in Tehsil Anni since 1950. The Court Commissioner alongwith his report has also placed on record revenue documents reflecting that land offered by the petitioner falls in Mohal and Patwar Circle, Dingidhar. The land offered by the petitioner is not in confirmity with the parameters of advertised location. Three parameters were required to be satisfied viz. (i) land had to be at Nimla; (ii) At NH-305; and (iii) Between Luhri- Anni road. The land offered by the petitioner does not satisfy all these three prescribed parameters. Respondents have justified turning down the land offered by the petitioner being not in conformity with advertised 7 2026:HHC:34479 specification. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 17, 2026 Judge yogesh