Rajendra Kumar Bajpai vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Allotment of retail dealership - Rejection of application due to alteration in prescribed affidavit - Adherence to strict guidelines of the advertisement brochure - When the policy explicitly prohibits any addition, deletion, or alteration in the application once submitted, the rejection of an application for failing to use the exact prescribed format for a mandatory declaration is valid and not arbitrary. (Paras 6, 7)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Laches and Delay - A petition challenging a procedure initiated over a decade prior, where the prayer has become academic due to the lapse of time, does not warrant interference by the Court. (Para 7)

Facts of the case:
An applicant applied for a retail outlet dealership in response to a newspaper advertisement. The application was rejected on the grounds that a specific clause in the submitted affidavit had been altered from the prescribed format. The applicant challenged this rejection, contending that no material information was suppressed and that the rejection was based on mere technical grounds, asserting that the action was arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the necessary requirement for the declaration in the specific words provided in the prescribed format. According to the applicable brochure, no alteration is permitted once the application is submitted. The court concluded that the authorities did not act wrongfully or arbitrarily, as the applicant cannot take advantage of their own mistake which cannot be corrected after the cut-off date.

Issues: Whether the rejection of an application for a dealership on the ground of alteration in the prescribed format of the mandatory affidavit is arbitrary and whether the court should interfere in a matter where there has been a significant delay in seeking relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that strict compliance with the prescribed format of mandatory declarations in dealership applications is required. An applicant who fails to follow the prescribed format cannot claim relief against a policy that prohibits post-submission alterations. Additionally, extreme delay in pursuing the remedy renders the petition academic.

Result: The present petition being meritless, stands dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Rejection of dealership application for non-compliance with prescribed affidavit format. (Para 2 , 3 )

2. Petitioner argued rejection arbitrary; respondent argued strict compliance with format required. (Para 4 , 5 )

3. Petition dismissed; no illegality or arbitrariness warranting writ interference. (Para 7 , 8 )

4. Can an application for dealership be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed affidavit format?

Yes, if the format requires specific declarations and no alterations are permitted after the cut-off date, rejection is valid. (Para 6 , 7 )

5. Does a writ court interfere with rejection of dealership applications on technical grounds?

No, unless there is illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of natural justice; strict compliance with policy justified. (Para 7 , 8 )

6. Does delay in challenging rejection of dealership affect granting of relief?

Yes, after a lapse of many years, the prayer becomes academic and relief not granted. (Para 7 )

ORDER :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

The petitioner has filed this petition by praying the following reliefs:

" 7.1 To call for the entire record for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

7.2. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to allot retail outlet/dealership of Petrol Pump in favour of the petitioner in District Rewa, in pursuance to advertisement dated 16.9.2011.

7.3. To issue any other suitable directions/orders along with cost of the petition."

2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are that the respondents published an advertisement in newspaper - Dainik Bhaskar on 21.9.2011 and invited application for allotment of retail out-let (Petrol pump) Dealerships in Rewa District. The respondents also published prescribed format of application as well as affidavit in the said advertisement. As the petitioner fulfilled the requirements, he applied for the same in the prescribed proforma and also given requisite information through affidavit as prescribed by the respondents. Copies of the applications are filed herewith as Annexure-P-1 and Annexure-P-2. It is clear from perusal of Annexure-P-2, that the petitioner has given specific information in respect to that no dealership/LPG Distributorship of any oil Company is in the name of himself, his wife or his son has ever been allotted. Thus, in fact the same has been given as per the prescribed proforma of affidavit as attached with the application form and fulfilled the required information as desired by the respondents. Thereafter the respondents being satisfied with the same, started verification of land/site as per the information given by the petitioner and a letter was issued to this effect to the Collector District, Rewa and thereafter the petitioner supplied requisite documents to the District Collector Rewa, and the verification of the land was taken place by Tahildar Huzur, District Rewa. A copy of the letter issued by the Deputy Collector to the petitioner dated 15.11.2011 and the reply to this application dated 30.12.2011 and copy of letter dated 10.1.2012 are filed herewith as Annexure-P-3, Annexure-P-4 and Annexure-P-5 respectively. Thereafter the petitioner has been served with the impugned letter/order dated 18.1.2012 by which he has been informed that his application has been rejected with the reason that in the affidavit submitted by the candidate as per format, the Clause No. 2 is altered. A copy of the order 18.1.2012 is filed herewith as Annexure-P-6.

3. The petitioner immediately filed an application taking an objection that he has given information as per the requirement through affidavit and he has not suppressed any material information, therefore, the affidavit as given by the petitioner be treated as correct as he never altered the Clause No.2. Thereafter, the petitioner has been informed by the respondent no.2 that looking to his objection dated 31.1.2012, the same has been sent to the respondent No.1 and appropriate action would be initiated and information would be given to him. A copy of the letter dated 13.3.2012 is filed herewith as Annexure-P-8. The petitioner waited for sufficient time but he has not been informed up-till now and recently, he came to know that the respondents are going to finalize the allotment of retail outlet in favour of some body else for the same area for which the petitioner has applied, by this way the genuine claim of the petitioner has been ignored on technical grounds. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Shri Manoj Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has applied for dealership for Indian Oil Corporation retail outlet (petrol pump) whereby he has filed all the relevant documents as required by the respondent/Company pursuant to the advertisement given in the newspaper. However, the application of the petitioner is not accepted on technical grounds by informing the petitioner that he has not filed affidavit in necessary format regarding his mar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Rajendra Kumar Bajpai – Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21834 Of 2012
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can an application for dealership be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed affidavit format?

5. Does a writ court interfere with rejection of dealership applications on technical grounds?

6. Does delay in challenging rejection of dealership affect granting of relief?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 703

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURSANDEEP N. BHATT, J.Rajendra Kumar Bajpai – Petitioner VersusIndian Oil Corporation Limited And Others – Respondents Writ Petition No. 21834 Of 2012Decided On : 09-01-2026

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can an application for dealership be rejected for non-compliance with the prescribed affidavit format?

5. Does a writ court interfere with rejection of dealership applications on technical grounds?

6. Does delay in challenging rejection of dealership affect granting of relief?

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Rajendra Kumar Bajpai – Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Limited And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 21834 Of 2012
Decided On : 09-01-2026