Case Background
This case arises from an advertisement dated 24.11.2018 issued by Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appointment of retail outlet (petrol pump) dealers.
The location concerned was between Shivrampur Chowk and Peer Mazar on State Highway 98 in Katihar district. The petitioner applied for this outlet under the Group 1 category.
Under the selection scheme, Group 1 was meant for applicants who already had suitable land at the advertised location, either owned or on a long-term lease of at least 19 years and 11 months. Land owned by a family member could also be counted, provided a proper consent affidavit was submitted.
The petitioner claimed eligibility under Group 1 by offering land belonging to his mother. He submitted his application form on 24.12.2018.
Selection was to be done by draw of lots among eligible candidates, and then a detailed Field Verification of Credentials of the selected candidate was to be carried out by Indian Oil.
On the basis of the declaration given by the petitioner in the application form, he was included in the draw. By letter dated 28.06.2019, Indian Oil informed him that he had been declared successful in the draw of lots for the dealership and asked him to submit documents for Field Verification of Credentials within ten days.
During this stage, the petitioner submitted a confirmatory letter from an advocate in Appendix III B format dated 01.07.2019. Subsequently, by letter dated 12.08.2019, the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai, cancelled the petitioner’s candidature for the dealership under Group 1.
Aggrieved by this cancellation, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5239 of 2020 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The key dispute was whether the petitioner had complied with the mandatory document requirement for claiming Group 1 status, especially the requirement regarding the advocate’s confirmatory letter (Appendix III B) about the land.
The Court closely examined the brochure, the application form and the conditions attached to the advertisement, particularly Clauses 4(V)(k), 4(V)(m), 13 and 15.
Under the brochure, Group 1 applicants had to have suitable land in the advertised area through ownership or long-term lease. Land of a family member could be accepted if supported by a consent affidavit in Appendix III A. Crucially, the eligibility of an applicant with respect to land was to be decided with reference to a confirmatory letter from an advocate in Appendix III B format.
Clause 13 of the application form dealt with land details. It stated that where land belonged to a family member or others, a notarised affidavit in Appendix III A should be available to be submitted when asked by Indian Oil. It also stated that every applicant should have a confirmatory letter from an advocate in Appendix III B, giving details of current ownership, documents relied on and the category under which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2), before submitting the application.
Clause 4(V)(k) of the brochure made this requirement more specific. It required each applicant to declare in the application form the category under which the offered land falls. To support this declaration, the applicant had to obtain a confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B) giving details of current ownership, documents relied upon, and the category under which the land falls, as on the date of application. This confirmatory letter was to be furnished as and when advised by Indian Oil.
The brochure also carried a Note that if, at a later stage, it was found that the offered land did not meet the conditions, the land would be rejected and the candidate would be pushed to compete along with Group 3 applicants, with intimation by SMS or email.
Clause 4(V)(m) provided that verification of supporting documents submitted by the selected candidate would be carried out at the time of scrutiny or Field Verification of Credentials.
Clause 15 laid down that Field Verification of Credentials would be undertaken for the selected candidate to verify the correctness of all details given in the application and later documents. The candidate had to produce original documents at this stage, and the intimation for Field Verification would be given ten days in advance by SMS or email.
The petitioner was admittedly a Group 1 applicant, claiming land belonging to his mother. His application was submitted on 24.12.2018. On this declaration he was included in the draw of lots and was declared successful.
After his selection, Indian Oil, by letter dated 28.06.2019, demanded that he submit supporting documents, including Appendix III A and Appendix III B, for the purpose of Field Verification of Credentials.
In response, the petitioner submitted an Appendix III B confirmatory letter from an advocate dated 01.07.2019. This document clearly came into existence after the date of his application form.
The core legal question was whether this post-application date of the confirmatory letter violated the selection conditions.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that he had already submitted the advocate’s confirmatory letter along with his initial application and that he again submitted the letter dated 01.07.2019 when asked. According to him, once the petitioner had been selected in the draw of lots and had produced a confirmatory letter, he had complied with the selection conditions. He contended that cancelling the candidature merely on a technical ground regarding the date of the confirmatory letter was arbitrary.
On the other hand, Indian Oil’s senior counsel submitted that the entire selection process was governed by strict terms and conditions in the brochure, application form and advertisement. Under these terms, the confirmatory letter from an advocate had to exist as on the date of the application and had to reflect the land status on that date. It was not enough to secure such a certificate later.
Indian Oil pointed out that at the time of filing the application, proof of ownership of land was not required to be submitted immediately but the applicant had to already have the confirmatory letter in place, and it had to bear a date before or on the date of application. This was vital for determining whether a person really qualified as Group 1, which carried an advantage over other groups.
According to Indian Oil, when documents were called for after selection, the petitioner only produced a confirmatory letter dated 01.07.2019, which did not meet this temporal requirement. Therefore, his claim to Group 1 status could not be accepted. On this basis, his candidature was not considered valid under Group 1.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s own case showed that he submitted the Appendix III B letter only on 01.07.2019. He did not produce before the Court any earlier confirmatory letter in Appendix III B format that existed before or on 24.12.2018, the date of his application.
The Court held that a close reading of Clause 13 of the application form and Clause 4(V)(k) of the brochure made it clear that, to claim Group 1 status, a candidate must obtain and be able to produce, when asked, a confirmatory letter from an advocate in Appendix III B format bearing a date prior to or on the date of the application.
Since the only confirmatory letter the petitioner produced was dated after the application date, the Court concluded that he did not fulfil this mandatory condition.
The Court also took note of a Division Bench judgment in Sunita Yadav v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others, reported in 2021 (4) PLJR 608. In that case, on a similar issue relating to Appendix III B, the Division Bench had rejected the claim of a candidate who did not possess all required documents before submission of the application or on the date of application. This precedent supported Indian Oil’s stand that applicants must have all prerequisite documents at the time of application.
Applying this reasoning, the Court held that Indian Oil had rightly treated the petitioner’s candidature as invalid for Group 1. It found no illegality or arbitrariness in the cancellation letter dated 12.08.2019.
Consequently, the writ application was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for anyone applying for government-linked dealership schemes, especially for petrol pumps.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that when a brochure or application form says that a document must exist as on the date of application, this requirement is strict. It is not a mere formality.
Candidates cannot try to cure such defects later by obtaining certificates or affidavits after submitting the application. If they do so, their applications can be cancelled even after they are successful in a draw of lots.
The judgment also highlights that courts will closely follow the terms of the advertisement and brochure, particularly where selection is based on declared categories like Group 1 land ownership. Applicants must therefore carefully read these documents and ensure that all mandatory papers—such as advocate’s confirmatory letters or family consent affidavits—are in place before they apply.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether Indian Oil Corporation Limited was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s Group 1 petrol pump dealership candidature for not producing an advocate’s confirmatory letter (Appendix III B) dated prior to or as on the application date.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that the brochure and application form clearly required Appendix III B to bear a date before or on the date of application, and the petitioner only produced a letter dated 01.07.2019, after submitting his application on 24.12.2018. Therefore, Indian Oil rightly rejected his candidature under Group 1. - Issue: Whether cancellation of candidature on this ground was arbitrary or merely a technicality.
Answer: No. The Court found the condition to be a substantive eligibility requirement, not a minor technicality, and relied on the Division Bench decision in Sunita Yadav to affirm that failure to possess required documents on the application date is fatal.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Sunita Yadav v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited and Others, 2021 (4) PLJR 608.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5239 of 2020
Case Title: Ajay Kumar Yadav v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 289
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha
Date of Judgment: 01.03.2024
Parties: Petitioner – applicant for petrol pump dealership; Respondents – Indian Oil Corporation Limited and its officials, and a private respondent.
Advocates: For the petitioner – Mr. Sanjeet Kumar. For Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Mr. K. D. Chatterji, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Amlesh Kumar Varma. Advocates for other respondents are not specified in the judgment.
Challenged Action: Letter dated 12.08.2019 issued by the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Divisional Office, Begusarai, cancelling the petitioner’s candidature for retail outlet dealership under Group 1.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under civil writ jurisdiction challenging cancellation of selection for petrol pump dealership by a public sector corporation.
Outcome: Writ petition dismissed; cancellation of candidature upheld; no order as to costs.
Link to Judgement; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTIzOSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-tRI–ak1–fUXg49Y=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
