SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1187

PATNA HIGH COURT
HONOURABLE , CJ, HONOURABLE MR. PARTHA SARTHY, J
Deepak Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Kumari Nikita Singh – Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No.1039 of 2024 | Letters Patent Appeal No. 1191 of 2024 | Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1241 of 2021



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. P. N. Shahi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate, Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate

The cancellation of candidature for a Retail Outlet dealership was justified due to simultaneous applications for the same plot of land, violating established policy prohibiting multiple submissions.

Headnote:(A) Contract Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of candidature for Retail Outlet dealership due to simultaneous applications for the same plot of land - Clause 15(m) of the application explicitly prohibits multiple applications for the same land; the cancellation was deemed justified. (Paras 3, 18, 23)

(B) Right to be Heard - Claim of violation of natural justice dismissed, as the rejection of candidature was based on the applicant's own misrepresentation of facts, thus not warranting a hearing. (Paras 19, 21)

(C) Approval Process - The BPCL's cancellation of the petitioner's application aligned with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the declaration provided by the petitioner stating all information is accurate. (Paras 17, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner submitted an application for a Retail Outlet dealership under BPCL but was later informed of cancellation due to simultaneous submissions for the same plot of land by another applicant, her sister-in-law. Following a drawn selection process, her application was accepted, but the field verification revealed the overlap, resulting in cancellation.

Findings of Court:
The BPCL acted in accordance with the stipulated clause in the application to cancel the candidature, as the same land was offered by both the petitioner and her sister-in-law.

Issues: Whether the BPCL's action to cancel the application violated principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that BPCL did not violate natural justice as the cancellation was supported by the terms in the application and the applicant's own declarations about the accuracy of her details.

Result: Appeals allowed; the impugned judgment is set aside.

Table of Content
1. factual background of alleged dealership (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding legal basis for cancellation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. court's analysis of submissions and legal framework (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
4. court's ratio decidendi on applicant's knowledge of land eligibility (Para 24)
5. conclusion to set aside the learned single judge's order (Para 25)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 29-07-2025

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 03.12.201

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top