Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 11 August 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Amit Kansotia; Respondents – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and others.
  • Background: HPCL advertised a dealership under the Scheduled Caste category in its 2013‑14 Market Plan for Vidisha District, Madhya Pradesh. Applicants were screened; the third respondent was initially qualified but failed to meet the Rs 5,00,000 minimum balance requirement, having only Rs 28,500 in the savings account.
  • Re‑scrutiny: HPCL issued a clarification letter, received the admission, and re‑scrutinised all applications, selecting Amit Kansotia, who established the dealership in 2016 and has operated it continuously.
  • Litigation History: A writ petition challenging the allotment was dismissed; a subsequent writ appeal was allowed by the High Court in 2018. The third respondent filed an appeal alleging lack of locus standi and procedural impropriety; the Division Bench allowed this appeal.
  • Procedural Issue: The Division Bench examined HPCL’s procedure, noting that HPCL relied on a Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas communication dated 25‑02‑2016 (Annexure P13) which the Court found did not expressly permit re‑scrutiny of already disqualified applicants.
  • Locus Standi: The Supreme Court observed that the third respondent, being a disqualified applicant, had no locus standi to challenge the allotment, even on public‑interest grounds.

Observations & Reasoning

  • The Court acknowledged that the re‑scrutiny was not authorized by the cited communication, but emphasized that the dealership has been functioning without complaint since 2016.
  • Ordering a fresh advertisement would entail additional public expenditure, which the Court deemed unnecessary given the uninterrupted operation of the dealership.
  • The primary justification for setting aside the Division Bench order is the lack of locus standi of the third respondent and the appellant’s continuous possession of the dealership.

Final Outcome

  • The appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 10665‑10666 of 2026) are allowed on the sole ground of the appellant’s continued operation of the dealership.
  • The Division Bench order is set aside.
  • All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Public Procurement