WP/14430/2024 of MR. ARJUN V S Vs THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED on 25 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Both writ petitions are taken up together, as they involve common questions, and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners have sought, inter alia, quashing of the communications issued by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation limited [the Corporation], rejecting/cancelling their candidature and, consequently, a direction to the respondent to issue letters of intent in their favour for establishment of the retail outlets. Brief facts

3. W.P.No.15835/2024 [GM-RES]: The petitioner submitted an application pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 for allotment of a retail outlet dealership on SH-152, from Machcheri Village to Annigere Village, Chikkamagaluru District, under the open category. The petitioner offered lands comprised in Sy.Nos.12/38 and 12/39 and states that the requisite documents

HC-KAR

pertaining to the said lands were furnished to the respondent- Corporation.

4. In the course of processing the application, the Corporation, by communication dated 01.02.2024, called upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents/corrected documents. Thereafter, by the impugned communication dated 18.05.2024, the Corporation declared the petitioner's candidature ineligible on the ground that Appendix-III in respect of all co-owners had not been submitted. The said communication also informed the petitioner that he could submit his representation/grievance against the rejection on or before 28.05.2024. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before the Court seeking to quash the communication and for a consequential direction to the respondent to issue a letter of intent in his favour.

5. W.P.No.14430/2024: The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a retail outlet dealership pursuant to the very same advertisement dated 28.06.2023. The petitioner states that he is the owner of 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/3 situated at H.Thimmapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tarikere Taluk,

HC-KAR

Chikkamagaluru District and asserts that the documents relating to the said property were furnished along with his application.

6. The petitioner was thereafter called upon to participate in the Field Verification of Credential [FVC]. By the impugned communication dated 25.05.2024, the Corporation cancelled his candidature on the ground that he has failed to produce the original documents during the FVC and that the documents produced by him were at variance with the documents/information furnished in the application.

7. According to the petitioner, the relevant documents had been furnished and the Corporation had also sought verification of the property documents from the concerned Sub-Registrar.

Submissions

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners had furnished the documents necessary for consideration of their respective applications and that their candidature could not have been rejected/cancelled without affording them an adequate opportunity to explain the alleged

HC-KAR

deficiencies. It is submitted that the action of the respondent- Corporation is arbitrary and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018 [the Brochure].

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation would justify the impugned communications and submits that the selection of a retail outlet dealership is governed by the terms and conditions contained in the Brochure and that every candidate is required to satisfy the eligibility requirements and furnish the prescribed documents.

10. It is submitted that, in W.P.No.15835/2024, the candidature was found ineligible on account of failure to furnish Appendix-III in respect of all co-owners, whereas, in W.P.No.14430/2024, the candidature was cancelled during the FVC on account of non- production of original documents and variance in the documents/information furnished by the petitioner and those produced during the FVC. It is, therefore, submitted that no right to issuance of a letter of intent has accrued to the petitioner.

HC-KAR

11. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation further submits that an alternative mechanism is provided under the Brochure and that the petitioners can approach the Grievance Redressal System. Reasons and conclusions

12. It is evident that the petitioners’ applications have not culminated in the issuance of letters of intent. The impugned communications have been issued at the stage of processing/verification of their respective applications. Clause 18 of the Brochure itself provides for a Grievance Redressal System, under which a candidate aggrieved by the rejection/cancellation of his candidature is entitled to approach the designated authority/forum. The grievance urged by the petitioners, including whether the documents furnished by them satisfy the requirements of the Brochure and whether the deficiencies noticed by the Corporation are capable of being satisfactorily explained, are matters which can be appropriately examined by the authority constituted under the said Grievance Redressal System.

HC-KAR

13. In that view of the matter, this Court does not consider it necessary, at this stage, to adjudicate upon the correctness of the reasons assigned by the respondent-Corporation. Since the petitioners have approached this Court challenging their respective communications and the petitions have remained pending before this Court, it would be appropriate to afford them an opportunity to invoke the Grievance Redressal System, notwithstanding the expiry of the period, if any, prescribed therefor.

14. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petitions are disposed of. ii. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the appropriate Grievance Redressal System/Competent Authority constituted under the Brochure for Selection of Dealers of Regular and Rural Retail Outlets and submit their grievances within four weeks from date. iii. If such grievances/representations are submitted within the aforesaid period, the Competent Authority shall entertain the same without rejecting

HC-KAR

them on the ground of delay, examine the contentions of the respective petitioners in accordance with the applicable Brochure/guidelines, and pass appropriate, reasoned orders in accordance with law. iv. Till the expiry of the aforesaid period of four weeks, the impugned communications shall be kept in abeyance. v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the respective cases.

Sd/- ____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4