Case Background
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) issued an advertisement dated 25.11.2018 for award of retail outlet (RO) dealership at various locations between Raniganj and Araria on National Highway 327E in District Araria. Certain locations were reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category.
The petitioner, a woman belonging to the SC category, applied on 22.12.2018 for an RO dealership at Raniganj to Araria on NH 327E under the SC category. After scrutiny, she was initially found eligible and was asked to produce documents. A Land Evaluation Committee of BPCL visited the proposed site on 30.07.2019.
Subsequently, by letter dated 06.12.2019, BPCL fixed 16.12.2019 as a fresh date for field verification. During this process, the Land Evaluation Committee observed that multiple village roads were intersecting the National Highway within 300 meters of the offered plot and asked the petitioner to obtain a clarification from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
According to the petitioner, NHAI later clarified that there was no other road within 300 meters of her offered land. She also stated that she had entered into an inter-caste marriage with one Tridev Singh, who was an LPG distributor, and that she had been inducted as a partner in his business after marriage.
On 18.08.2020, the Head of Territory Officer, TM Retail, Barauni (Respondent No. 2) issued a letter cancelling the petitioner’s candidature for the RO dealership. The cancellation was based on BPCL’s guidelines on “Multiple Dealership Norms” contained in the Brochure dated 24.11.2018 for “Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets.”
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 585 of 2021 before the Patna High Court seeking quashing of the letter dated 18.08.2020 and a direction to BPCL to award her the dealership.
What the Court Examined and Decided
Justice Mohit Kumar Shah heard the matter and examined both the Brochure governing selection and the factual position about the petitioner’s existing LPG distributorship connection.
The petitioner’s counsel relied heavily on Clause 3 and Clause 10 of the Brochure dated 24.11.2018. Clause 3 classified RO sites into three categories:
- Locations under Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS) – corporation-owned “A”/“CC” sites where the land is taken on lease/purchase and fully developed by the corporation;
- Other corporation-owned sites (“CC”/“A”); and
- Dealer-owned sites (“DC”/“B”) where the land and superstructure are developed by the dealer and equipment is provided by the corporation.
The note to Clause 3 specifically stated that all locations rostered as SC/ST category would be developed as CFS sites, that is, as corporation-owned “A”/“CC” sites.
The central provision in dispute was Clause 10 titled “Disqualification – Individual Applicants.” Under Clause 10 A(i), multiple dealership norms were laid down. It stated that the applicant or any member of his or her “family unit” should not hold a corporation-owned “A”/“CC” site RO/SKO-LDO dealership or RO/SKO-LDO dealership/LPG distributorship developed under Corpus Fund Scheme or other special categories of any oil company.
The term “family unit” was defined in the Brochure. In case of a married applicant, it included the applicant, spouse, and unmarried children. Thus, the petitioner and her husband formed one family unit for the purpose of these norms.
The key clarification was provided in Note (a) to Clause 10 A(i). It allowed existing “B”/“DC” site RO/SKO-LDO dealers or LPG distributors (other than those developed under Corpus Fund Scheme or other special categories) and their family members to apply for only “B”/“DC” site RO dealerships. In simple terms, those who already had dealer-owned outlets or distributorships could apply only for another dealer-owned outlet, not for a corporation-owned CFS outlet.
The petitioner’s argument was that her husband’s LPG distributorship had been granted under the open category and not under a “B”/“DC” category envisaged in the Brochure. She contended that since the existing distributorship was not a corporation-owned “A”/“CC” site distributorship developed under Corpus Fund Scheme or any other special category, there was no bar on her being granted a CFS dealership under the SC category.
To support her stand, the petitioner also cited the Supreme Court decision in Sunita Gupta v. Union of India & Others, (2014) 15 SCC 601. In that case, the Supreme Court had criticized an oil company for cancelling selection of a candidate on a technical ground related to consent letters for land, after her selection was duly completed. The Court held that the corporation had acted unfairly and arbitrarily.
The petitioner sought to draw a parallel, suggesting that BPCL was similarly cancelling her selection on a technicality despite her having fulfilled the land requirements and receiving favourable site assessments.
On the other hand, counsel for BPCL emphasised that the case turned purely on clear-cut eligibility norms and not on technicalities. The Field Verification Committee discovered that the petitioner’s husband was an LPG distributor of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and that the petitioner herself was a 50% partner in that business, namely the LPG distributorship operating under the name and style of “M/s Devrani HP Gas Gramin Vitrak.”
BPCL relied on a Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 10.03.2014 issued by HPCL showing that the husband had been selected as an LPG distributor, with the petitioner as a partner. Since this distributorship was not developed under the Corpus Fund Scheme or any special category, it fell within “B”/“DC” category as per Clause 3 of the Brochure.
Based on Clause 10 A(i) read with Note (a), BPCL argued that existing “B”/“DC” category LPG distributors and their family members could only apply for “B”/“DC” site RO dealerships. They were barred from applying for corporation-owned “A”/“CC” site dealerships, which included all CFS and SC/ST reserved locations.
The Court agreed with BPCL’s reading of the Brochure. It held that since the petitioner and her husband were running an LPG distributorship which was clearly not developed under the Corpus Fund Scheme or special category, it necessarily fell under “B”/“DC” category. This categorisation flowed directly from Clause 3 because the distributorship land and superstructure were not corporation-owned or CFS-based.
Justice Shah further noted that Clause 10 A(i), as clarified by Note (a), limited such “B”/“DC” category distributors to applying only for “B”/“DC” site RO dealerships. They could not seek a CFS RO, which is an “A”/“CC” corporation-owned site. The petitioner, however, had applied for a dealership under the Corpus Fund Scheme reserved for SC category candidates. Hence, she was not eligible under the Brochure.
On the reliance placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Sunita Gupta, the Court effectively distinguished it. In that case, the cancellation was on a mere technicality after the candidate had been found fully eligible. In the present case, the issue was not a technicality but a basic disqualification under the multiple dealership norms which the corporation was bound to follow. The petitioner and her family already enjoyed the benefit of an LPG distributorship, and the guidelines restricted them from taking a CFS outlet.
The Court also observed that the petitioner was not left without any remedy under the scheme. She remained eligible to apply for an RO dealership under the “B”/“DC” category, as per the same guidelines. However, since the advertisement in question concerned a CFS outlet (“A”/“CC” site) reserved for SC category, she could not claim a right to that specific dealership.
After reviewing the relevant clauses of the Brochure and the facts, the Court concluded that the cancellation letter dated 18.08.2020 issued by the Head of Territory Officer, TM Retail, Barauni, was in complete consonance with the Brochure dated 24.11.2018. Consequently, the writ petition was found to be devoid of merit.
The Patna High Court therefore dismissed the writ petition and refused to interfere with BPCL’s decision or to direct the corporation to grant the dealership to the petitioner.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for applicants seeking petrol pump or LPG distributorships from oil companies such as BPCL, HPCL, or others. It shows that courts will strictly enforce eligibility and multiple dealership norms laid down in the selection brochures.
For families where one member already holds an LPG distributorship or RO dealership, this case clarifies that they cannot freely apply for all categories of outlets. If their existing distributorship is in “B”/“DC” category, they are confined to that category for future applications, and cannot demand a Corpus Fund Scheme outlet.
The decision also highlights that even candidates from reserved categories, including SC/ST, must still satisfy all other conditions of the Brochure. Reservation alone does not override clear disqualification clauses.
For oil companies, the judgment reinforces that they can cancel candidature if eligibility conditions are not met, as long as they act strictly according to their published guidelines and do not act arbitrarily or in contradiction of those rules.
Legal Issues and Answers
Issue: Whether the petitioner, who was a 50% partner in an existing LPG distributorship under “B”/“DC” category, was eligible to be awarded a Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS) RO dealership reserved for SC category, which is an “A”/“CC” corporation-owned site.
Answer: No. The Court held that under Clause 10 A(i) read with Note (a) of the Brochure dated 24.11.2018, such existing “B”/“DC” category LPG distributors and their family members can apply only for “B”/“DC” site RO dealerships and are ineligible for CFS “A”/“CC” site dealerships.
Issue: Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s candidature by BPCL was arbitrary or contrary to law, warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.
Answer: No. The Court held that the cancellation letter dated 18.08.2020 was in line with the Brochure’s guidelines on multiple dealership norms and thus did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Issue: Whether the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sunita Gupta v. Union of India supported the petitioner’s claim that cancellation after selection was invalid.
Answer: No. The Court found that, unlike in Sunita Gupta where cancellation was on a mere technicality, here the petitioner was substantively ineligible under explicit disqualification clauses; therefore, the precedent did not help her.
Cases Cited by the Court
Sunita Gupta v. Union of India & Others, (2014) 15 SCC 601 – cited by the petitioner; distinguished by the Patna High Court.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 585 of 2021
Case Title: Ranjeeta Kumari v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Others
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 449
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Date of Judgment: 24.12.2021
Advertisement and Brochure Dates: Advertisement dated 25.11.2018; Brochure on Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018
Impugned Order: Letter dated 18.08.2020 issued by Head of Territory Officer, TM Retail, Barauni, cancelling petitioner’s candidature
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, Advocate
- For the Respondent-Corporation: Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging cancellation of selection for RO dealership and seeking a direction to award dealership.
Link to Judgment:file:///C:/Users/Adity/OneDrive/Documents/Vaktrita%20Final/case%201783.pdf
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.
