[2025:RJ-JP:51002]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15989/2010 Bhawani Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, R/o 24, Suraj Nagar I, Deegi Malpura Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Chairman Indian Oil Bhawan, Corporate Office 3079/3, Sadiq Nagar, JB Tito Marg, New Delhi - 110049

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rajasthan State Office Through General Manager, Ashok Chowk, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur

3. Shri Namo Narayan Meena S/o Sh. Geeta Ram Meena, R/o Kalwada, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yatharth Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Aman Yadav, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv.

Ms. Annika Anna, Adv. for Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Adv.

Mr. Akshay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

17/12/2025

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure-8), whereby the petitioner’s representation dated 10.08.2010 alleging that the land offered by Shri Namo Narayan Meena (respondent No.3), who is the first empanelled candidate, is not suitable. It is further contended that the land in question is not suitable as it does not meet the criteria prescribed under Sub-Clause 6.1.1 of the Government of Rajasthan PWD circular dated 27.12.2004. It is also contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2, without conducting proper inquiry, dismissed the petitioner’s representation (Annexure-4) and subsequently allotted the land offered by respondent No.3 for establishing a petrol pump.

2. Respondent No.3 has filed a detailed reply controverting the averments made in the writ petition and has placed on record Annexures R/3/1 to R/3/6. It is contended that the petitioner also applied for allotment of land for the purpose of establishing a petrol pump. However, the petitioner secured lesser marks, whereas respondent No.3 secured higher marks. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, after conducting thorough inquiry, found the land offered by respondent No.3 suitable for establishment of a petrol pump. It is further submitted that NOC was duly issued by the Fire Department and by the JDA vide order dated 10.10.2014 and 13.11.2014 respectively. The letter of intent was issued to respondent No.3 on 15.04.2011 and thereafter a lease deed was executed on 09.06.2016. The dealership agreement came into existence on 18.07.2017. The petitioner has not challenged the subsequent NOC granted by the JDA and the lease deed dated 09.06.2016. The respondent No.3 has already established the petrol pump as per the guidelines issued by IOC and the petrol pump is functional since 2017. Therefore, considering the above facts, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. It is evident that the petitioner has not challenged the NOC issued by the JDA dated 13.11.2014. The petitioner himself applied for offering his land for establishing a petrol pump, but his merit position was lower in comparison to the respondent No.3. The IOC conducted an inquiry, and after conducting thorough inquiry and getting NOC's from the concerned department, granted lease deed in favour of respondent No.3.

5. During the course of arguments, the petitioner for the first time raised the objection that the land offered by respondent No.3 was under acquisition. However, the petitioner has not challenged the NOC issued by JDA dated 13.11.2014. If the land was indeed under acquisition, the JDA could not have issued the NOC in favour of respondent No.3.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere. The writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.

7. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-21