1 CGHC010182112014 2026:CGHC:42267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 36 of 2014 * - Dileshwar Prasad Patail S/o Shri Padum Lal Patail Aged About 25 Years R/o Village C/o Rajesh Tiwari, Ward No.6, Bus Stand Main Road, Sakari, Police Station Sakari, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner Versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Raipur Area Office, Through Chief Area Manager, (Marketing Division) Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Telibandha, Post Office Ravi Gram, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Department Of Petroleum, Ministry Of India, New Delhi 3 - State Of C.G. Through Secretary General Administration Department, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents And WPC No. 3278 of 2017 * - Dileshwar Prasad Patail S/o Shri Pedum Lal Patail, Aged About 28 Years R/o Village C/o Rajesh Tiwari, Ward No. 6, Bus Stand Main Raod, Sakari, Police Station Sakari, Civil And Revenue District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner Versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Raipur Area Office, Through The Chief Area Manager (Marketing Division) Rajiv Gandhi Marg, Telibandha, Post Office Ravi Gram Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Petroleum And Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 --- Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2026.10.01 17:46:15 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28/09/2026 1. The petitioner has filed both writ petitions seeking the following relief(s):- WPC No. 36/2014: 10.1 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17/12/2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No. 1 in the interest of justice. 10.2 That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to further issue a mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner and he may be permitted to participate in the LPG distributorship proceedings in the interest of justice. 10.3 Any other relief, which may be deemed, fit by this Hon’ble Court just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be provided in favour of the petitioner. WPC No. 3278/2017: 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the case, from the respondents. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned advertisement dated 14.08.2017 (ANNEXURE P/1) and impugned notification published in Dainik Bhaskar on 29.11.2017 (ANNEXURE P/2), duly in accordance with law in the interest of justice, to the extent it related to distributorship of LPG of IOC at Uslapur Bilaspur. 3 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent No. 1 floated an Advertisement on 08.09.2013, which was published in the Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper inviting application for appointment of LPG distributorship of many places in the State of Chhattisgarh including Uslapur, District Bilaspur under the OBC category. He would contend that the petitioner had applied for LPG distributorship at Uslapur, District Bilaspur. Mr. Sharma would further submit that vide order dated 17.12.2013, respondent No. 1 rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that caste of the petitioner does not reflect in the list of OBC issued by Central Government and Appendix-3b was also not submitted. It is also contended that without cancelling the earlier Advertisement, a fresh advertisement was issued for same location of Uslapur, Bilaspur for LPG distributorship on 14.08.2017. Mr. Sharma would fairly submit that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 1 and in turn, the authority concerned may be directed to consider and decide it keeping open the issue regarding social status of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. N. Naha Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Considering the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before respondent No. 1 within a period of the 30 days and in turn, the 4 authority concerned is directed to consider and decide the representation so made by the petitioner expeditiously without touching the issue of social status of the petitioner, preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid direction(s), both the writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti