Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ. –

L.P.A. No.1191 of 2024

The present appeals arise out of oral judgment dated 29.07.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No.1241 of 2021 by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Kumari Nikita Singh (Respondent No.1 in LPA No.1191 of 2024) and thereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BPCL’)) and direction has been given to process the application of the original petitioner.

2. As the order impugned in both the appeals is common, learned Advocates appearing for the parties jointly requested that both these appeals be heard together and be disposed of by common order.

Factual Matrix

3. Factual matrix of the present case is as under: –

3.1. One Kumari Nikita Singh (original petitioner) filed the captioned writ petition being CWJC No.1241 of 2021 in which the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside the letter/order dated 03.12.2019, passed by Territorial Manager Retail, Muzaffarpur whereby the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner also prayed that this Court may declare and hold that the land/plot offered by the petitioner for Retail Outlet dealership within 2 km. from Barail Chowk towards Donwari Hatt on Madhubani Babubarhi Khutona Path, District Madhubani under open category through application form submitted by the petitioner is not offered by another applicant for the same location and the said land exclusively has been offered by the petitioner for the location.

3.2. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the BPCL came out with an advertisement dated 25.11.2018 under open category inviting application for award of Retail Outlet dealership within 2 km. from Barail Chowk towards Donwari Hatt on Madhubani Babubarhi Khutona Path, District Madhubani with certain conditions and eligibility criteria. It is stated that the petitioner being interested, submitted her application under open category for allotment of the Retail Outlet dealership of petrol pump. The said application was submitted on 23.12.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that all the necessary details, as required in terms of the advertisement published, have been furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter downloaded the entire Brochure on “guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process”.

3.3. It is further stated that draw of lots for dealership in question was conducted on 26.07.2019 in which the petitioner was declared as a selected candidate through draw of lots for Retail Outlet dealership. After the petitioner was declared as a successful candidate in the draw of lots, direction was given to the petitioner through letter dated 29.07.2019 to remit Rs.40,000/- towards initial security deposit along with set of documents within the stipulated time. Necessary formalities were also completed thereafter.

3.4. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter on 26.09.2019, the field verification of credentials was fixed. It is further the case of the petitioner that on the very same day, i.e., 26.09.2019, other candidate, namely, Manisha Kumari, who had also applied for award of dealership against the same location, has withdrawn her candidature due to the reason that her sister-in-law has been selected in draw of lots.

3.5. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that letter dated 03.12.2019 was received by the petitioner whereby she was informed that her candidature for award of RO dealership was cancelled for the reason that the plot offered by the petitioner was also offered by another applicant for the same location.

3.6. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned writ petition.

3.7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 29.07.2024 allowed the writ petition and thereby directed the BPCL to process the application of the petitioner