1 2026:CGHC:1035-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 508 of 2024 Shalini Sudha Maheshwar D/o Shri Dayal Prasad Maheshwar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sindhora, P. S. And Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh). ... Appellant versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its General Manager, Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Aliyawar Jung Marg Bandra, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 400051 2 - M. P. State Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Iocl Bhawan, 16 Arera Hills Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 3 - Chief Divisional Manager (Retial) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Indian Oil Bhawan, V.I.P. Road, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). 4 - Executive Director (Retail) M.P. / C.G. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bhopal (M.P.) Indian Oil Bhawan 16, Jail Road Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 5 - Ashutosh Kumar Koshle S/o Shri Horilal Koshle Aged About 34 Years Caste- Sc, R/o House No. 625/1, Sakrelibhatha Baradwar, Tahsil Baradwar, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh). 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) 2 For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-4 For Respondent no. 5 For State : : : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent no. 5, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State. 2. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3492 of 2023 (Ashutosh Kumar Koshle Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner for quashing the LOI (letter of intent) issued in favour of the private respondent, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 3. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition listed and decided by the Hon’ble Single Bench whereas the matter relates to contract (between appellant & 3 IOCL) and as per rule 23(iv) of High Court Rules the matter would be listed and heard by the Hon’ble Division Bench only. The appellant has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of Suresh Chaturvedi Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2011 (1) MPLJ 203. So far is the favouritism is concern or arbitrariness in the case to favour to the appellant, there is no prove produce by the writ petitioner before the Hon’ble Single Bench. Hence, the judgment deserves to be set-aside. The Hon’ble Single Bench ought to have appreciated the judgment relied by the writ petitioner in his writ petition have no force as it is tender matter and no arbitrariness, irrationality, or perversity met in the case. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench would not sustained in the eye of law as also the guidelines of the IOCL annexure A/9, thus the judgment passed in WPC No. 3492 of 2023 deserves to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.5 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Advertisement specifically provides that the selection will be carried out strictly as per “Brochure for Selection dated 24.11.2018” and as per advertisement dated 14.12.2018 the appellant has offered originally khasra no. 1555 and as per Annexure R-1/2 (annexed with the writ petition) filed by the oil corporation, field verification conducted on 25.11.2019 with an observation and reasoning for non-suitability of offered land as per NHAI norms not meeting, so 100 days’ time is given for 4 getting NHAI clarification for finalizing site further, “2 roads were found first at 100 meters and 2nd at 250 meters intersecting NH- 130B while going towards kasdol.” The oil company has issue advisory to the appellant to seek clarification from NHAI on the suitability of offered land by 14.04.2020 on 25.02.2020 the Chief Engineer PWD NH zone Raipur inform the applicant proposal for relaxation of norms for the roads within 300 meters from the proposed location will be considered as per circular dated 16.03.2016 and can apply for the access permission as per circular dated 24.07.2013. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 further contend that the learned Single Judge has categorically recorded a finding that applicant offered land not meeting the norms even otherwise also Annexure P-16 and P-17 filed by the petitioner/respondent no. 5 before the Writ Court the document provided under RTI specifically says that if the offered land under dealer selection brochure is not meeting the NHAI norms then such land cannot be selected and LOI cannot be issued. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 7. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 02.07.2024 partly allowed the writ petition of the appellant by observing as follows:- 5 “26. For the aforesaid reasons, as discussed, as also in light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the action on the part of the respondent no. 1 in alloting the dealership of retail outlets (petrol pump) and subsequent action of respondent No. 1 being arbitrary and granting undue favour to respondent no. 5, is not sustainable and therefore selection of respondent no. 5 and all subsequent orders are quashed. 27. As the brochure specifies the procedure to be adopted in case the selected candidates does not found to be suitable for establishing the retail outlet, respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the application of remaining applicants in terms of Clause 14(H) of brochure/guidelines (Annexure P/3) and to complete the proceedings for appointing dealer for retail outlet (petrol pump) as per advertisement (Annexure P-1). 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part.” 8. From perusal of the impugned order and materials available on record, it transpires that the eligibility criteria for allotment of retail outlet dealership is governed by Clause-4 of the brochure. Clause-4(v) specifically deals with the requirement of land and 6 classifies applicants into three groups. Group-1 applies to candidates having suitable land by ownership or long-term lease; Group-2 to those having a firm offer of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC; and Group-3 to applicants who have not offered land at the time of application. Compliance with the prescribed NHAI norms is mandatory. 9. Clause-4(m) further provides that verification of supporting documents submitted by the selected candidate is to be carried out at the time of Scrutiny/Field Verification of Credentials (FVC). 10. From the record, it is evident that the land initially offered by the appellant was evaluated by the Land Evaluation Committee and was found to be non-suitable on account of non-compliance with NHAI norms, particularly due to the existence of two intersecting roads within prohibited distances. The appellant was granted time to obtain clarification from NHAI; however, it is an admitted position that no clarification, relaxation, or approval from the competent authority of NHAI was ever submitted. 11. The documents on record further reveal that after issuance of the Letter of Intent (LOI) on 08.01.2021 in favour of respondent No.5, an application was made on 09.03.2021 for offering alternate land. Note-4(i) under Clause-4 of the brochure clearly stipulates that the opportunity to offer alternate land is not available after issuance of LOI. The said provision leaves no ambiguity and 7 expressly prohibits consideration of alternate land post-LOI. 12. The reliance placed by respondents on Note-3 under Clause-4 is misconceived. Note-3 can operate only where the candidate otherwise fulfills all eligibility conditions and the alternate land also conforms strictly to the specifications and the advertised location. In the present case, the initial land itself was non-compliant and no statutory clearance from NHAI was produced. 13. Clause-14(H) of the guidelines further mandates that where the land of the selected candidate is found unsuitable, the candidate is to be informed of his or her ineligibility and the selection process is to continue with the remaining applicants. Permitting the appellant to offer alternate land, contrary to Notes-3 and 4 under Clause-4, was therefore impermissible. 14. From a cumulative consideration of the pleadings, documents on record, and the applicable clauses of the brochure, it clearly emerges that the appellant did not fulfill the mandatory land eligibility conditions and that respondents No.1 to 4 extended undue favour by accepting an alternate land offer in violation of the governing guidelines. Such action is arbitrary and contrary to the terms of the brochure, which binds all parties. 15. While it is well settled that courts ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with contractual or tender matters, judicial review is permissible where arbitrariness, favouritism, or violation of 8 prescribed norms is apparent. The present case squarely falls within such exception, as the action impugned is ex facie contrary to the eligibility conditions and statutory norms. 16. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge while partly-allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Madhurima