2026:CGHC:1035-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 508 of 2024 Shalini Sudha Maheshwar D/o Shri Dayal Prasad Maheshwar Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Sindhora, P. S. And Tahsil Palari, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh).

... Appellant versus

1 - Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its General Manager, Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Aliyawar Jung Marg Bandra, Mumbai (Maharashtra)

400051

2 - M. P. State Officer Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Iocl Bhawan, 16 Arera Hills Jail Road, Bhopal (M.P.)

3 - Chief Divisional Manager (Retial) Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), Indian Oil Bhawan, V.I.P. Road, Rajeev Gandhi Marg, Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

4 - Executive Director (Retail) M.P. / C.G. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bhopal (M.P.) Indian Oil Bhawan 16, Jail Road Arera Hills, Bhopal (M.P.) 5 - Ashutosh Kumar Koshle S/o Shri Horilal Koshle Aged About 34 Years Caste- Sc, R/o House No. 625/1, Sakrelibhatha Baradwar, Tahsil Baradwar, District Sakti (Chhattisgarh).

6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector- Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent(s)

For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For Respondent No. 1-4 : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For Respondent no. 5 : Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Addl. A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

07.01.2026

1. Heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for Respondents No. 1 to 4, Mr. Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent no. 5, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State.

2. This writ appeal is presented assailing the order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 3492 of 2023 (Ashutosh Kumar Koshle Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others), whereby, the writ petition filed by writ petitioner for quashing the LOI (letter of intent) issued in favour of the private respondent, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition listed and decided by the Hon’ble Single Bench whereas the matter relates to contract (between appellant &

IOCL) and as per rule 23(iv) of High Court Rules the matter would be listed and heard by the Hon’ble Division Bench only. The appellant has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of M.P. High Court in the case of Suresh Chaturvedi Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2011 (1) MPLJ 203. So far is the favouritism is concern or arbitrariness in the case to favour to the appellant, there is no prove produce by the writ petitioner before the Hon’ble Single Bench. Hence, the judgment deserves to be set-aside. The Hon’ble Single Bench ought to have appreciated the judgment relied by the writ petitioner in his writ petition have no force as it is tender matter and no arbitrariness, irrationality, or perversity met in the case. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench would not sustained in the eye of law as also the guidelines of the IOCL annexure A/9, thus the judgment passed in WPC No. 3492 of 2023 deserves to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.5 opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that the Advertisement specifically provides that the selection will be carried out strictly as per “Brochure for Selection dated 24.11.2018” and as per advertisement dated 14.12.2018 the appellant has offered originally khasra no. 1555 and as per Annexure R-1/2 (annexed with the writ petition) filed by the oil corporation, field verification conducted on 25.11.2019 with an observation and reasoning for non-suitability of offered land as per NHAI norms not meeting, so 100 days’ time is given for getting NHAI clarification for finalizing site further, “2 roads were found first at 100 meters and 2^nd at 250 meters intersecting NH- 130B while go