IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.950 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17933 of 2017 ======================================================

Tarak Chaudhary, son of Late Saryug Chaudhary, resident of Village-

Bhusahi, P.O.- Beladam, P.S.- Baligoan, District- Vaishali.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Maurya Lok Complex, Patna-800001, through its General Manager.

2. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Patna Divisional Office, Patna.

3. The Deputy General Manager Retail Sales, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Patna ... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 17-02-2026 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant Tarak Chaudhary challenging the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 17933 of 2017, in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking for following reliefs:

“(i) Issuance of direction, order or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the letter dated 16.09.2017 (Annexure-4 to this writ application) issued by the respondent no.3, by which the candidature of the petitioner was not found to be eligible for K.S.K. dealership.

(ii) Issuance of direction, order or writ restraining the respondents to allot the K.S.K. dealership on the location for which the petitioner was selected vide letter dated 10.02.2017 (Annexure-3 to this writ application) issued by the respondent no.2 in draw of lots, during the pendency of the present writ application.

(iii) Any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner may be found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) issued an Advertisement in the daily Newspaper on 22.10.2014 for selection of Kishan Seva Kendra (in short ‘K.S.K.’). The appellant on being found eligible applied for the dealership under S.C. Category and submitted all the required documents. After submission of such application form, the Land Evaluation Committee of the Corporation inspected the offered land and also perused the documents pertaining to the lease deed and other supporting documents and found the petitioner eligible for K.S.K. dealership. In the light of the inspection conducted, the Corporation vide letter dated 19.01.2017 informed the appellant that he had been qualified for draw of lots for selection of the K.S.K. dealership and requested him to remain present personally in the office of the Corporation on 10.02.2017. The petitioner accordingly ensured his presence at the venue and in the draw of lots for selection of the R.O. dealership, the petitioner was selected for the location on which he applied. However, subsequently vide letter dated 16.09.2017, the petitioner was informed that his candidature was found to be ineligible for K.S.K. dealership on the ground that there is no sub-lease clause in the Lease Agreement for the offered plot. The petitioner submitted his representation before the Corporation stating therein that the word ‘lc yht’ has been written as ‘”k;yht’ and there is a provision for rectification of the documents and, therefore, he may be permitted to rectify the same. However, the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected. According to the writ petitioner-appellant, the rejection of the representation suffers from non-application of mind, besides the Corporation with an ulterior motive has decided not to grant license to the petitioner and, therefore, the action is illegal, arbi