Case Background
The matter arose from an advertisement issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) in the daily “Hindustan” newspaper on 18 May 2012. The advertisement invited applications for regular LPG distributorships from eligible persons under different categories.
The petitioner is the son of a defence personnel. His father worked in the Army Medical Corps, retired in 1999, later joined Defence Security Corps in 2003 and was martyred on duty on 23 October 2007. On this basis, the petitioner obtained an eligibility certificate from the Ministry of Defence, New Delhi on 18 June 2012.
Relying on this certificate, the petitioner applied on 29 June 2012 for a regular LPG distributorship under the GP category for Nanpur, District Sitamarhi. Along with his application, he submitted 36 documents, including a notarised lease agreement dated 26 June 2012 for 36 decimals of land (Plot No. 1731, Khata No. 663, Thana No. 191, Mauza Nanpur, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi). The lease was said to be for 30 years in his favour, executed by one Ramjiwan Choudhary, for use as godown and showroom land.
On 15 January 2013, IOC’s Chief Area Manager, Patna Area Office, asked the petitioner to supply the original eligibility certificate, which he did. After scrutiny, the petitioner’s name was included in the draw for selection.
The draw was held on 28 April 2013 and the petitioner was declared the selected candidate for the LPG distributorship at Nanpur. This was communicated to him by letter dated 6 April 2013 and again by letter dated 28 April 2013. On the same date, he was called to the Indane Area Office, Patna, where his photo identity card was checked in person.
Thereafter IOC initiated detailed verification of his documents. By letter dated 14 May 2013, IOC sought verification of the petitioner’s caste and residential certificates from the Circle Officer, Bajpatti, District Sitamarhi. The Circle Officer, by letter no. 319 dated 18 May 2013, supported the petitioner’s documents.
For the godown land, the petitioner applied for a Nazri Naksha (map) on 7 June 2013 before the Circle Officer, Nanpur, in respect of Plot No. 1731, Khata No. 663. The Circle Officer issued the Nazri Naksha after physical verification of the plot.
However, when IOC verified the notarised lease agreement, the Sub-Registry Office, Pupari, informed on 8 July 2013 that the lease deed dated 26 June 2012 was not registered there. IOC then wrote to the Notary Public, Sitamarhi, on 16 July 2013, and the notary confirmed that he had notarised the document, but this did not change the fact that it was not a registered lease.
On 2 September 2013, IOC’s Chief Area Manager wrote to the petitioner asking him to provide alternate land in his own or family unit’s name, as required under the advertisement, giving him seven days to respond.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging IOC’s letter no. PAT/LPG/NEW/GP/156/02 dated 25 September 2013, issued by the Chief Area Manager. Through this letter IOC cancelled his candidature on the ground that he did not have suitable land for godown and showroom as on the date of application.
He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the cancellation letter and a writ of mandamus directing IOC to allot the regular LPG distributorship to him, relying on the earlier letter dated 28 April 2013 which had declared him selected.
In the writ proceedings, the petitioner argued that the letter asking for alternate land, though dated 2 September 2013, was signed on 3 September 2013, dispatched by speed post on 4 September 2013 and received by him on 7 September 2013. He claimed that before this, on 2 September 2013, he had already submitted an application to IOC’s General Manager along with an original registered lease deed covering the same land plus an additional 9 decimals (Khata No. 795, Plot No. 1744) adjacent to the earlier land. This additional land, he said, was executed by one Chandeshwar Paswan in his favour.
The petitioner’s case was that IOC failed to consider these documents and wrongly allotted the LPG distributorship to respondent no. 3 for an initial period of ten years. He alleged that this allotment to a third party was illegal and arbitrary, which compelled him to approach the High Court.
Later, by I.A. No. 2 of 2023 filed on 9 August 2023, the petitioner sought to amend his prayer to directly challenge and seek quashing of the LPG distributorship allotted to respondent no. 3 at Nanpur, Sitamarhi, under the same GP category advertisement dated 18 May 2012.
Indian Oil Corporation filed a detailed counter affidavit. IOC took the stand that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was not eligible for consideration in the first place. According to IOC, as on the last date for submitting applications, 29 June 2012, the petitioner did not own any land nor hold a registered lease deed in his favour for the required godown and showroom land.
IOC pointed out that only two applications were received for the Nanpur location under GP category. The petitioner was initially declared successful in the draw held on 28 April 2013. However, during the detailed scrutiny, IOC found that the land claimed by the petitioner was supported only by a notarised, but unregistered, lease deed. The selection guidelines required land ownership or a registered lease as on the date of application.
Because of this deviation, IOC treated the petitioner as ineligible and proceeded to consider the second candidate, respondent no. 3, who had complied with all the conditions. Respondent no. 3 was finally allotted the LPG distributorship and has been running it under the name and style of “M/s Sahid Yogendra Indane” since 25 September 2014.
IOC also highlighted the petitioner’s delay. The allotment in favour of respondent no. 3 was made on 28 February 2014. Yet, the petitioner sought to challenge this allotment only in 2023 by filing the interlocutory application to amend his prayer.
On behalf of IOC, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1160, Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors. The Patna High Court noted that in that case, the Supreme Court dealt with similar circumstances relating to delay and laches in challenging a petroleum dealership.
The Supreme Court had observed that from May 2004 to October 2006, the respondent in that case did not take any steps to challenge the letter of intent granting dealership to the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasised that a writ remedy is discretionary and delay and laches are important factors. The Court quoted several passages where the Supreme Court reiterated that even though Article 226 does not prescribe a limitation period, petitions should be filed within a reasonable time and relief can be denied if there is undue delay.
Further Supreme Court decisions such as Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation v. Jabar Singh, New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh, and others were cited within the same judgment to underline that writ petitions filed after long delays can be dismissed for laches, especially when third party rights have crystallised.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court examined the timeline in the present case. Applications were invited in May 2012 and the last date was 29 June 2012. The petitioner was selected in the draw on 28 April 2013, but he failed to establish that he had a registered lease in his favour on the date of application.
The Court noted that IOC had therefore considered respondent no. 3, who had applied within time and had the required land documents, and allotted the distributorship to him on 25 September 2013. The dealership in favour of respondent no. 3 was in operation from 2014.
The Court observed that the petitioner ought to have challenged the allotment in favour of respondent no. 3 at the earliest opportunity. Instead, the original writ petition only targeted the cancellation of his candidature and non-consideration of his claim. By the time he sought to amend his petition through I.A. No. 2 of 2023 to specifically challenge respondent no. 3’s allotment, nearly a decade had passed since the advertisement and several years since the distributorship started functioning.
The High Court held that, in view of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Virender Chaudhary and the doctrine of delay and laches, it would not be equitable to interfere at such a belated stage. The Court treated the Apex Court judgment as squarely applicable to the facts before it.
Since the petitioner was ineligible at the time of application for lack of registered land, and had also approached the Court too late to disturb an existing dealership, the Court concluded that the writ petition lacked merit.
Accordingly, the Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the distributorship of respondent no. 3 undisturbed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for individuals applying for LPG dealerships or similar government-linked distributorships. It underlines that all eligibility conditions, especially land ownership or registered lease requirements, must be fulfilled exactly on the date of application.
The judgment also shows that even if someone is initially declared “selected” in a draw, this is not a final right. The oil company can still cancel the candidature if later verification shows that the applicant did not meet basic conditions from the start.
For ordinary applicants, the case highlights another key point: if you want to challenge cancellation of your selection or allotment to another person, you must act quickly. Courts may refuse relief if you wait for many years, especially where the dealership has already been functioning and third party rights have taken shape.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the petitioner, who did not have a registered lease for the required land on the date of application, could claim a right to LPG distributorship based on his initial selection in the draw.
Answer: No. The Court accepted IOC’s stand that absence of registered land on the application date made the petitioner ineligible, and initial selection could be cancelled. - Issue: Whether the Patna High Court should set aside the LPG distributorship granted to respondent no. 3 after several years of operation on the ground that the petitioner was earlier selected.
Answer: No. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that the petitioner’s long delay and laches in challenging the allotment barred relief under Article 226.
Cases Cited by the Court
- AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1160, Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Ors.
- Within that judgment, references were made to: (2007) 2 SCC 112, Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & Anr. v. Jabar Singh & Ors.; (2007) 9 SCC 278, New Delhi Municipal Council v. Pan Singh & Ors.; Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh; Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan; Lipton India Ltd. v. Union of India; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India; (2006) 8 SCC 726, Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Ors.; and Khoday Distilleries Limited (now Khoday India Ltd.) v. The Scotch Whisky Association & Ors.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23000 of 2013
Case Title: Manoj Kumar Saksena v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Date of Judgment: 01-04-2024
Citation: 2024 (2) PLJR 375
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Sanket, Advocate
- For Indian Oil Corporation: Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate
- For respondent no. 3: Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari and mandamus regarding LPG distributorship allotment.
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court official judgment link
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.
