1 CGHC010051712023 2026:CGHC:29907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 763 of 2023 1 - Smt. Reena Kashyap W/o Shri Anoop Kashyap Aged About 39 Years R/o Ward No. 08, New Chandaniya Para, Janjgir, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Head Of Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhavan, Vip Road, Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited Divisional Office, Indian Oil Bhawan, Vip Road, Post Ravigram, Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chief Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur, Area Office, Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Telibandha, Post Ravigram, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- Mr. Amit Xalxo, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 15.07.2026 1. Following reliefs have been prayed in this petition:- “10.1 That, the respondent No.1 be directed to quash/set- aside the impugned Letter dated 24-01- 2023 (Annexure P-1) securing the candidature of the petitioner. 10.2 That, Petitioner's representation dated 23-01- 2023 made before Respondent No.1 may be decided within a stipulated time period. 10.3 this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief, as it may deems fit and appropriate.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for allotment of a retail outlet dealership pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent–Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It is submitted that the petitioner's application was found eligible and, thereafter, the petitioner was directed to deposit the initial security amount. However, the petitioner could not deposit the requisite amount within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that though the respondent granted opportunities to the petitioner by extending the time for deposit on 28.11.2022, thereafter till 17.12.2022, and lastly till 02.01.2023, the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount. Learned counsel would submit that the communications granting extension of time were not properly communicated to the 3 petitioner and, therefore, the delay in depositing the amount deserves to be condoned. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–Indian Oil Corporation Limited submits that the petitioner was granted adequate opportunities to deposit the initial security amount, but despite repeated extensions, the petitioner failed to comply with the essential condition of the allotment process. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature was rightly rejected in accordance with the applicable guidelines. It is further submitted that after rejection of the petitioner's candidature, the selection process proceeded further, the applications of other eligible candidates were considered, one of the candidates has already been selected, and the process for allotment of the retail outlet has substantially progressed. Therefore, at this stage, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner was afforded not merely one but three opportunities to deposit the initial security amount. Despite the extensions granted by the respondent on 28.11.2022, 17.12.2022, and lastly 02.01.2023, the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amount. Deposit of the initial security amount was an essential condition of the allotment process, and the petitioner admittedly failed to comply with the same. 4 6. The contention that the communications were not properly conveyed to the petitioner does not inspire confidence, particularly when repeated extensions were granted by the respondent. Even otherwise, after rejection of the petitioner's candidature, the respondent has proceeded further with the selection process and has already selected another candidate for allotment of the retail outlet. Interference at this stage would unsettle the completed selection process and adversely affect the rights accrued in favour of third parties. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner's candidature for non-deposit of the initial security amount is in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the allotment process and does not suffer from any arbitrariness, illegality, or procedural impropriety warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha