The Patna High Court found that the oil company followed its brochure and advertisement rules.
The Court dismissed the petition and did not restore the distributorship.
The company’s decision to reject the candidature and forfeit the fee now stands confirmed.
Case Background
The case arose from an advertisement dated 18.06.2017 issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for selection of LPG distributors under the “Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors – June 2017”.
The petitioner applied for a Gramin LPG Distributorship at location Chand Panchayat, Block Chand, District Kaimur (Bhabhua), under the “SC(W)” category. Her application related to land at village Chand, Police Station and Block – Chand, in District Kaimur (Bhabhua).
A draw of lots was conducted on 29.12.2017 for this advertised location. The petitioner was declared successful in that draw.
Following her selection, the respondents, by e-mail dated 30.12.2017, asked her to deposit the fee and submit documents for Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) in terms of the Unified Guidelines and the Brochure.
The petitioner deposited the required FVC fee of Rs. 20,000/- and submitted documents as required. Initially, in her application, she had offered land bearing Khata/Plot No. 206/271 for the LPG godown and showroom, to be taken on lease.
However, she could not execute the lease deed for that originally offered plot. Later, she obtained a registered lease deed bearing Deed No. 84 dated 09.01.2018 for another piece of land for a period of 16 years. She offered this alternate land during the FVC conducted on 21.02.2018.
Thereafter, the controversy arose around whether this alternate land, acquired and documented after the last date of application, could be accepted under the Brochure and guidelines, and whether the corporation acted legally in rejecting her candidature and forfeiting her FVC fee.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The petitioner’s main grievance was against the letter dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure-8) issued by the Territory Manager (LPG), Patna (respondent no. 2). Through this letter, her candidature for the Gramin LPG Distributorship at Chand Panchayat, Chand Block, District Kaimur (Bhabhua) was cancelled. The same letter also ordered forfeiture of the FVC fee of Rs. 20,000/- deposited with the Corporation.
The petitioner argued that this cancellation was illegal and arbitrary. She claimed that her alternate land should have been accepted and that the forfeiture of the whole amount was against the Brochure.
According to the petitioner, Paragraph 2(E) of the Brochure allowed offering alternate land for the godown and showroom at the time of FVC. She said she had done exactly that by entering into a registered lease deed on 09.01.2018 and producing it at the FVC on 21.02.2018.
She further claimed that respondent officials orally assured her that the alternate land, backed by this new lease deed, would be acceptable. She said she acted in good faith based on this assurance and that, therefore, rejecting this land later was unfair.
However, by communication dated 21.02.2018, she was informed that the land offered could not be accepted because the lease deed had been registered after the last date of submission of applications, i.e., 14.08.2017. The respondents insisted that only land held on or before that date would be considered.
The same communication also called upon her to provide alternate land within 15 km of the advertised location. She was clearly warned that if she failed to do so, her selection would be cancelled.
The petitioner then sent representations dated 04.04.2018 and 08.06.2018, requesting that the land offered at the time of FVC be accepted. She highlighted that the land otherwise met all brochure requirements.
Despite these representations, the respondents issued the impugned letter dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure-8), cancelling her candidature. The reason given was that the lease deed for the land she offered was executed after the cut-off date of 14.08.2017, and that she had not provided any other eligible alternate land.
The key portion of Annexure-8, reproduced by the Court, records the findings of the FVC team. It states that:
- The petitioner had declared land for LPG godown and showroom at location Chand, vide Khesra/Survey No. 271 in the application form.
- During FVC, it was found that this originally declared land was not in her possession.
- She instead requested consideration of a different land, which she had taken on lease for 15 years under a registered deed dated 09.01.2018.
- This lease deed date was after the last date of submission of application forms, i.e., 14.08.2017.
- Hence, the land offered for godown and showroom post FVC could not be considered.
- By her letter dated 04.04.2018, she herself informed the FVC team that she did not have any other land in Chand District Kaimur in her name or in the name of her family unit as on 14.08.2017.
On this basis, BPCL rejected her candidature and forfeited the Rs. 20,000/- FVC fee in line with clause 26 of the “Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors – Sheheri Vitrak, Rurban Vitrak, Gramin Vitrak and Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak – June 2017”.
The petitioner also challenged the forfeiture itself. She contended that Paragraph 26(B) of the Brochure only allowed forfeiture of 10% of the deposited amount in case of cancellation of candidature, and therefore quitting the entire Rs. 20,000/- was beyond the authority of the Corporation and contrary to its own Brochure.
The respondents, through a counter affidavit, justified their action. They submitted that Annexure-8 showed that the matter was fully considered and that her candidature was rejected only after proper scrutiny of documents and compliance with the Brochure.
The respondent BPCL, represented by counsel, argued that the core issue was the petitioner’s failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the advertisement, the Brochure, and the settled guidelines. They stated that this Court, in multiple earlier decisions, had already clarified that strict compliance with brochure conditions is mandatory for LPG distributorship selections.
To support this position, the respondents relied on decisions of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. Specifically, they cited:
- 2012 (2) PLJR 783, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors.
- Order in LPA No. 925 of 2012, Mukesh Pandey vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors.
The Court referred in detail to the observations of the Division Bench in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra). The Division Bench had held that oil marketing companies, being “State” within Article 12 of the Constitution, must act fairly, reasonably and uniformly.
The earlier Division Bench decision made two key points:
- Once a standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation must adhere to that standard without variation. If it allows alteration, that would amount to a subjective approach, which courts have repeatedly disapproved.
- Where an application does not conform to the requirements of the advertisement, the Corporation is justified in rejecting it. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement.
Applying this legal position, the Patna High Court in the present case held that once the Corporation had fixed standards and conditions in the advertisement and the Unified Guidelines, it was bound to apply them strictly and uniformly to all applicants.
The Court noted that, in her application, the petitioner had offered land that turned out to be unsuitable in terms of the selection criteria of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors – June 2017. During FVC, the land declared in the form was found not to be in her possession, and the alternate land she produced was supported by a lease deed dated after the last date of application.
On these admitted facts, the Court held that the respondents were right in rejecting her candidature. The Court was clear that allowing such a deviation would undermine the objectivity and fairness required in the selection process.
The Court concluded that the petitioner could not claim any right to have her application considered contrary to the standards fixed in the advertisement and the Brochure. It found no error or irregularity in the issuance of the rejection letter (Annexure-8).
Accordingly, the writ petition was held to be devoid of merit and was dismissed. Any interlocutory applications also stood disposed of. The Court did not grant any relief regarding restoration of candidature or refund of the forfeited amount.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for all applicants who participate in LPG distributorship selections or similar government-linked schemes. It sends a clear message that the conditions given in the advertisement and the Brochure are not just formalities; they are binding standards.
The Patna High Court, following earlier Division Bench rulings, has reinforced that oil marketing companies must strictly follow their own guidelines. At the same time, applicants must also strictly comply. If an applicant’s land documents or other credentials do not satisfy the conditions as on the cut-off date, later corrections or new documents may not cure the defect.
This case also highlights that courts are generally reluctant to interfere in selection processes where the corporation has acted in line with declared norms. Even claims of oral assurances from officials cannot override written brochure conditions.
For prospective dealers, the practical lesson is simple: ensure that the land offered, ownership or lease documents, and all other eligibility requirements are complete and valid as on the last date of application. Any reliance on later-acquired land or informal assurances carries a high risk of cancellation.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the oil marketing company could cancel the petitioner’s LPG distributorship candidature for not having eligible land as per brochure conditions and cut-off date.
Answer: Yes. The Court held that once standards are fixed in the advertisement and Unified Guidelines, the Corporation must strictly adhere to them. Since the land originally offered was not in her possession and the alternate land lease was executed after the last date of application, the respondents rightly rejected her candidature. - Issue: Whether the Court should interfere with the corporation’s decision where it applied brochure conditions uniformly and rejected a non-compliant application.
Answer: No. Relying on Division Bench precedents, the Court held that interference is not warranted when the corporation has acted objectively and in conformity with the advertisement and brochure terms. - Issue: Whether the forfeiture of the FVC fee deposited by the petitioner could be upset in writ jurisdiction on the facts placed before the Court.
Answer: The Court did not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned letter, which included forfeiture in line with clause 26 of the Brochure. The writ petition challenging both cancellation and forfeiture was dismissed.
Cases Cited by the Court
- 2012 (2) PLJR 783, M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors.
- Order in LPA No. 925 of 2012, Mukesh Pandey vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18959 of 2018
Case Title: Renu Kumari vs. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 (4) PLJR 515
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy
Date of Judgment: 15-09-2025
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
- For the respondents (Union of India and BPCL authorities): Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG
- For BPCL: Mr. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging cancellation of LPG distributorship candidature and forfeiture of FVC fee.
Link to Judgment: View full judgment on Patna High Court website
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.
