Authority: High Court of Judicature at Patna

Order Date: 24-06-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Nilam Singh, resident of Galimpur, Bishwabharpur, Gopalganj district.
  • Respondents: State of Bihar; Collector/District Magistrate Gopalganj; Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) represented by its Chairman/MD, General Manager Bihar State Office, Managing Director, General Manager Area Office, Chief Area Manager Patna, Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager Muzaffarpur.
  • Relief sought: (i) Writ of certiorari to quash Annexure‑7 cancelling her selection as Retail Outlet dealer for the site between Jalalpur and Kuchaikote (Open Category); (ii) Writ of mandamus directing IOCL to grant the dealership; (iii) any other appropriate relief.
  • Advertisement dated 25‑11‑2018 by IOCL invited applications for Retail Outlet dealers.
  • Petitioner's application filed on 17‑12‑2018 under Open Category for the specified location.
  • Initially classified as Group‑I applicant; declared successful and, on 12‑01‑2019, instructed to deposit Initial Security Deposit of Rs 40,000 and submit documents, which she complied with.
  • IOCL later re‑examined documents, found land documents invalid for Group‑I, re‑classified her as Group‑III on 09‑03‑2019.
  • Land offered: Khata No. 37, Plot No. 1057, held in name of husband Awadesh Kumar Singh. Four consent affidavits submitted; two co‑sharers were brothers‑in‑law.
  • Clause 4(v)(e) of the Selection Brochure excludes brothers‑in‑law from the definition of “family unit”; their shares were excluded, leaving land area below the required 35 m × 35 m.
  • Under Clause 4(v), applicants whose land is unsuitable are shifted to Group‑III.
  • On 06‑09‑2021, IOCL emailed all Group‑III applicants, including petitioner, to furnish suitable land within three months. Petitioner failed to do so; consequently her candidature was cancelled.
  • Respondents argued that the selection process was conducted in accordance with the brochure and prior case law (M/s Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Jha & ors, 2012; Mukesh Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp.).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petitioner’s land, after excluding ineligible co‑sharers, did not satisfy the minimum dimension requirement for Group‑I.
  • The shift to Group‑III and subsequent cancellation were in strict conformity with Clause 4(v) of the brochure.
  • No vested or indefeasible right arose from the initial provisional selection.
  • The Court found no illegality, arbitrariness, procedural impropriety, or jurisdictional error in IOCL’s actions.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in its entirety.

Topics: Dealership Selection, Court Judgment