1 2026:CGHC:6660 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 2074 of 2014 Rahul Bhardwaj S/o Shri Mahadev Bhardwaj Aged About 25 Years R/o Village And Post Birra, Ps Birra, Tah Champa, Dist Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited , A Registered Company, Registered Office At G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai 400051, Branch Office At Indian Oil Bhawan, Divisional Office, Vip Road, Raipur, Telibandha, Ps Telibandha, Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Sale Officer, L.P.G. Raigarh, Vitaran Kendra, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Chief Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation, Rajeev Gandhi Road, Telibandha, Po Ravigram, Dist Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4 - The Collector Janjgir Champa, Distt Janjgir Champa, Cg, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. 5 - D.S.Kanwar Posted As Naib Tahsildar, Bamhnidih, Distt Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Hanuman Prasad Dewangan Posted As Revenue Inspector, Bamhanidih, Distt Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 7 - Chandrakumar Tiwari Aged About 27 Years Poste4d As Patwari, P.H.No.27, Tah Bamhanidih, Distt Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. 8 - Sahas Ram Kurre R/o Vill Ameradih, Tah Malkharoda, Distt Janjgir Champa, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. H. S. Patel, Advocate For Res. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 : Mr. Parth Shrivastava, Advocate For Res. No. 4 : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, Additional Advocate General For Res. No. 5 to 7 : None, despite service For Res. No. 8 : Mr. Dipak Kumar Singh and Mr. K. K. Dewangan, Advocates Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 05/02/2026 1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs :- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned orders dated 03.03.2014 and 02.09.2014(AnnexureP/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to award Distributorship of RGGLV of Location No. 6 Birra. 10.2 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10.3 That, this Hon’able Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/quash the impugned letter of appointment issued respondent Indian Oil Corporation for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak(RGGLV) at Birra in favour of respondent Sahas Ram Kurre on 05.11.2015(AnnexureP/20).” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1- Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited applications for appointment of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributor under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Distribution 3 Scheme in the State of Chhattisgarh, for which, an advertisement was published in daily newspaper “Nav-Bharat on 18th of May, 2013. The advertisement for appointment of the LPG dealer was also published in respect of village Birra Tahshil Bamnhidih, District Janjgir-Champa. Various conditions and eligibility criteria was also mentioned in the said advertisement. One of the conditions for eligible candidate for making an application in lieu of the advertisement is that candidate should be the resident of the said village and having the land with the requisite dimension as mentioned in the advertisement. It is submitted that the applicants, who are permanent resident of the village, shall be given preference in appointment of LPC Distributorship. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 submitted their applications in lieu of the advertisement. The petitioner also in detailed disclosed about the land held by him in village Birra. The petitioner also submitted the necessary documents, which were required in the said advertisement. Initially, the petitioner was shown to be a successful candidate by the respondent, however, the candidature of the petitioner was subsequently rejected inter alia giving the reason that the land held by him is not in the requisite dimension, as required in the said advertisement. Subsequently, the respondent No. 8 was selected as successful candidate. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 8 does not have the requisite qualification and eligibility criteria as prescribed in the advertisement. The respondent No. 8 is not a permanent resident of village Birra and, thus, acceptance of his candidature is bad in law. He further submits that as the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation wanted to give favour to respondent No. 8, in connivance with the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, when the measurement of land held by the petitioner was done, it was found to be in short to the dimension, as required in the advertisement. Later on, with 4 the interference of the concerned Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer, a subsequent demarcation of the land held by the petitioner was conducted in which, more land which fulfills the criteria of the advertisement was found in possession of the petitioner. It is further contended that apart from the above ground, respondent authority has rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that there is no approach road to the land of the petitioner and the land held by him is not suitable for opening of the LPC Distribution-ship. He further submits that the Sarpanch and other officials of the Gram Panchayat has clearly given a letter that the land held by the petitioner is approachable. To demonstrate the aforesaid fact, the petitioner also placed on records the photographs of the land held by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 8 has obtained the domicile certificate after the cut-out date as prescribed in advertisement dated 18th May, 2013. The Domicile certificate of respondent No. 8 was obtained by him on 15.07.2013. Thus, on the last date of submission of the form, the petitioner was not having the requisite qualification. He further submits that as per the advertisement, the land which is proposed for opening of the LPG dealership should have been in the name of the candidate on or before the last date of submission of form i.e. 18.06.2013. In the case in hand, the respondent No. 8 purchased the land on 14.06.2013. The Revenue record were not in the name of respondent No. 8 which is mandatory conditions in the advertisement. The name of the petitioner was only mutated in the revenue record on 19.07.2013, thus, on these counts firstly absence of domicile certificate; absence of name of respondent No. 8 in the revenue record, the acceptance of his candidature by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is bad in law. From the records, it is quite apparent that the respondents are in hand and globes and only in order to reject the candidature of the petitioner and to give benefit to respondent No. 8, the entire 5 exercise has been done. Though, no interim relief was granted by this Court and during pendency of this writ petition, the respondent No. 8 was granted the LPG Dealership, however, as the right of the petitioner is illegally curtailed and his candidature was wrongly rejected, the relief as claimed by the petitioner may be granted to him. 3. Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that though the preferential right is given to the local resident of village where the LPG Distributorship is to commence. However, it does not give any vested right to the local resident of that village. In the case in hand, of-course initially the petitioner was accepted as a selected candidate, however, when the enquiry was conducted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 with regard to suitability of the land held by the petitioner, a report was submitted by the concerned Revenue officials and according to that report, there was no approach road to the land of the petitioner, apart from this, the land of the petitioner was not fulfilling the dimension, which are mentioned in the advertisement. He further submits that the domicile certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 8 was subject to challenge by one Pyarelal Kurre by filing WPC No. 150 of 2016 unsuccessfully before this High Court. As such, there is stamp of approval by this Court with regard to validity and correctness of the domicile certificate of respondent No. 8. He further submits that the allegation made against respondent No. 8 with regard to connivance is absolutely unjustified and without any basis. He further submits that the candidate does not have any vested right to be selected, it is the choice of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to ascertain the viability of place of starting of the LPG distributorship and even if the candidate, who is not the resident of the village, provides for adequate and viable land, the decision can be given in favour of that person as per browser and guidelines. So far as the submission with regard to addition of the land of 6 the petitioner is concerned, he submits that that is done after the cut-off the date and when the report was submitted by the concerned Revenue Officials that the land which was shown by the petitioner does not fit into the criteria and dimension, as prescribed in the advertisement, after due deliberation, the decision has been taken not to allot the LPG distributorship to the petitioner and thereafter, the same was allotted in favour of respondent No. 8, who is only the remaining candidate. He further submits that from the documents available on record, it is quite vivid that the respondent No. 8 is also a resident of village Birra. Apart from this, he submits that now the distributorship has been allotted to respondent No. 8, who has invested huge amount, and as such the distributorship has started in the year 2015 thus after laps of 15 years, this Court may not give any indulgence to the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that the respondent No. 8 is the resident of village Birra. He has obtained a domicile certificate, which was challenged by one Pyarelal Kurre upto this High Court unsuccessfully. Thus, it does not appear to be any dispute with regard to domicile certificate of the respondent No. 8. He further submits that though the petitioner has purchased the land on 14.06.2013, and the revenue records were mutated on 19.07.2013, however, it does not make any difference as according to the advertisement and the browser of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the person should have a clear title and ownership over the land. He further submits that mutation in the revenue records is merely an indication with regard to land revenue, which has to be paid by the petitioner. Mutation does not create any title and title is only derived under the provisions contained in transfer of the property like sale or gift etc. In the case in hand, when admittedly the sale deed was executed on 14.06.2013, the title/ownership of the land of the petitioner has already been transferred in his name. Thus, it 7 fulfills the necessary eligibility criteria, which has been shown in the advertisement. Apart from this, he submits that he has invested huge amount in constructing the go-down and engaged in the business of dealership on the allotment by the respondent Nos. 1 & 4, thus , looking to the equity, it may not be disturbed by this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. The factum of issuance of advertisement for allotment of the LPG Distributorship is not in dispute. The condition precedent, as stated above are also not in dispute. The attack is made by learned counsel for the petitioner is basically on two folds. First folds is that the respondent No. 8 is not the resident / domicile of the Village Birra. In order to prove this fact, he has invited attention of this Court to the various documents to suggest that his name is recorded in the voter list of some other village. The submission is also made that once his name is recorded in the voter list of another village, he cannot be treated to be a domicile of village Birra. Perusal of the advertisement would go to show that only a preferential right is created in favour of the candidates, who were residing in the particular village. It does not appear that the choice is not left with the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as to whether if any suitable candidates of other village is made an application, his application is outrightly required to be rejected. The dispute herein is that as to whether the respondent No. 8 is domicile of village Birra or not. Though, some documents are available on record including the voter list which prima facie appears to show that the respondent No. 8 was not the resident of that village. However, this Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the domicile certificate was issued in favour of respondent No. 8, of course, after the date of advertisement, which was 8 unsuccessfully challenged by one Pyarelal Kurre up to the High Court. Apart from this, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the preferential right may have some advantage, but it is not a vested right to be selected. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to this Court for rejection of the candidature of respondent No. 8, as such, it is hereby repelled. The other contention with regard to suitability of the land is concerned, the argument was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is connivance between the respondents in measuring the land in short so that the dimension which are shown in the advertisement may not be fulfilled. He also tried to persuade this Court that subsequently with the intervention of the higher Officials i.e. Collector and SDO, again the demarcation was conducted and the land was found to be in co-relation with the dimension given in the advertisement. But the fact remains that it is the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who has to run LPG Dealership, to assess the viability and all other relevant factor for opening the LPC Distributorship. The wisdom, which has been utilized by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, of course, would have to be based upon a proper appreciation of facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, this Court at this stage, cannot say that the decision taken by respondents No. 1 to 4, on the basis of wisdom & report given by the Revenue Officials with regard to approach road of the petitioner’s land and giving the LPG distributorship to respondent No. 8, requires any interference by this Court. The other submission is also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the last date of advertisement i.e. 18.06.2013, the revenue records were not corrected. The law is well settled that revenue record does not create or extinguish the title, It is only a mode of assessment land revenue. The title is derived by the mode, which are defined in the Transfer of Property Act, 1885. In the case in hand, it is not disputed by either 9 of the parties that before the last date of submission of form i.e. 18.06.2013, the land was already purchased by respondent No. 8 on 14.06.2013, simply because his name could not be mutated perhaps in the revenue record, in the opinion of this Court, it may be an irregularity but not an illegality. After the assessment of the candidature of all the candidates i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 8, the decision was taken by the respondent No. 1 allot the LPG Distribution-ship to respondent No. 8. Another fact of this case is that the case was filed in the year 2014 and remained pending for all those years. In the meanwhile, the LPG Distribution-ship was allowed to the respondent No.8 and naturally for more than 10 years, he is running the LPG business and must have invested the huge amount in constructing the go-down etc. Thus , considering the every aspect of the matter, this Court in not inclined to interfere in this matter and grant the relief, as claimed by petitioner, to him. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand (s) disposed of. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge Ami AMITA DUBEY Digitally signed by AMITA DUBEY Date: 2026.02.16 17:27:09 +0530