IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVIEW No.200 of 2022 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5228 of 2020 ======================================================

Pappu Kumar Yadav Son of Dharmanath Yadav, resident of Village- Mairy Sudama, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The Indian Oil Corporation through its Chairman, G-9, Ali Aval Jang Mall, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051.

2. The Deputy General Manager, (LPG-S), Patna Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1^st Floor, Shahi Bhavan, Exhibition Road, Patna- 1.

... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Sr. Advocate Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 15-01-2026

1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation (herein after referred to as the ‘IOC’).

2. The instant application has been filed praying for review of the judgment dated 25.1.2021 passed in CWJC no.5228 of 2020, whereby the writ application filed by the petitioner/review applicant was dismissed.

3. The petitioner filed CWJC no.5228 of 2020 for quashing the letter dated 3.2.2020 of the IOC whereby the Letter of Intent (LoI) issued in favour of the petitioner for running the rural LPG distributorship in Morakhas in the district of Siwan was withdrawn. Further prayer was made by the writ petitioner to allow him to run the rural LPG distributorship as the petitioner had already invested huge amount and made necessary preparations for the same.

4. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was one of the applicants for grant of LPG distributorship in the category of OBC against an advertisement published on 17/18.6.2017 by the IOC. In the draw of lots, the petitioner was selected and a LoI was issued on 27.6.2019. Subsequent thereto a registered deed of agreement was entered into between the petitioner on one hand and Raju Kumar Singh and Basant Mishra on the other on 31.7.2019. This was without prior permission of the IOC and in clear violation of clause 5.4 of the LoI dated 27.6.2019. Taking this into consideration, the LoI issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the IOC which was challenged in the writ application. Not finding any merit in the writ application filed by the petitioner, CWJC no.5228 of 2020 was dismissed by judgment dated 25.1.2021. It is the review of this judgment which is sought for in the instant application.

5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred LPA no.173 of 2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a petition for review of the impugned judgment dated 25.1.2021. It is further submitted that clause 5.4 of the LoI relied upon in dismissing the writ application of the petitioner is an error committed and the said provision is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, error has also been committed in relying upon clauses 9, 9.1 and 9.3 in rejecting the writ application. The conclusion arrived at in the judgment under review is clearly erroneous and as such the order be reviewed and the prayer made in the writ application be allowed.

6. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the IOC. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 25.1.2021 dismissing the writ application. The petitioner has not been able to make out any case for review of the judgment and as such the application be dismissed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The writ application (CWJC no.5228 of 2020) filed by the petition