Patna High Court
K M Saba Firdaus @ Saba Firdaus vs The Indian Oild Corporation Limited And … on 20 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14089 of 2018
======================================================
K M Saba Firdaus @ Saba Firdaus W/o Shohaib Ahmad Ansari, Vill and Post-
Bansbari, P.S. and District-Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Chairman, 3079/3, J.B. Tito
Marg, Sadiq Nagar, New Delhi
2. The General Manager LPG Sales, IOCL, Patna.
3. The Chief Regional Manager, IOCL, Regional Office, Begusarai.
4. The Assistant Manager LPG Sales, Begusarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manager Sah, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-06-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
" (i) To issue a writ for setting aside the
order of the Indian Oil Corporation
Limited to hold re-draw for the fresh
section the LPG Distributor of IOC
(Gramin), Bansbari in Aaria district.
(ii) For commanding the respondent to
issue LOI to the petitioner.
(iii) Further, restraining the Respondent
from holding fresh re-draw which is
scheduled to be held on 20-07-2018 at
11.00 hrs. during the pendency of this
writ application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
2/18
(iv) To grant any other relief (s) for
which the petitioner may be found
entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. The petitioner has further filed I.A.
No. 1 of 2020 for further added the following
reliefs:
"For setting for setting
aside the letter dated 05.07.2018
(Annexure- R/3 of Counter Affidavit) by
which the candidature of the petitioner
for award of LPG distributorship at
Bansbari District Araria under open (W)
category has been rejected and the
amount of Rupees 40,000/- deposited
by the petitioner with the corporation
by way of security deposited has been
forfeited."
3. At the out set it is relevant to point out
that respondents by way of filing affidavit
brought to the notice of this Court that in
compliance of the status-quo order passed by this
Court dated 23.07.2018, further action pertaining
to finalizing of the re-draw has been kept on hold
till date.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
3/18
4. In nutshell, the contents are that the
petitioner made an application on 14.08.2017 vide
application Id. IOC 02313554214082017, pursuant
to Advertisement dated 17.06.2017 for
appointment of LPG Distributor (Gramin) at
Panchayat Level for Bansbari in the district of
Araria under open (W) category. The petitioner
was allotted LPG dealership by draw of lots
conducted on 19.12.2017 and thereafter the
requisite deposits and land required for opening
the dealership was submitted along with other
documents on 26.12.2017 vide Annexure-7.
5. It is submitted that during verification
of the land offered by the petitioner, it came to the
knowledge of the respondents that the lease of
land was by the husband of the petitioner who had
taken the land on lease by way of an agreement
from one Masud Alam Mohammad and another
piece of land from one Dashrath Chaurasia. There
was a clause in the lease agreement, that if the
LPG distributorship lease is not allotted to the
lessee, the lease agreement will automatically be
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
4/18
invalid.
6. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
Vide letter dated 15.05.2018, the earlier lease of
the husband of the petitioner was declared invalid
and another land was asked by the respondents.
The petitioner represented vide letter dated
15.07.2018
as contained in Annexure-13 that the
said clause could be amended between the lessor
and the lessee, which has not been replied nor
considered.
7. It is further submitted on behalf of the
petitioner that redraw of lots has been done by the
authorities of the Corporation, which as per Clause
20 of the Unified Guidelines For Selection of LPG
Distributors without rejection of the candidature of
the petitioner, the same could not be done.
8. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf
of the respondents. It is averred in the counter
affidavit that the issuance of LOI is subject to Filed
Verification of Credentials (FVC) of the applicant on
the basis of the information provided by the
applicant, in her application subject to meeting the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
5/18
corporation’s common eligibility criteria as per the
terms of the advertisement. Subsequent to
selection through the draw, the applicant is
expected to produce the documents, in support of
his/her claim made in the application to the
committee nominated for carrying out the field
verification of credentials. Based upon the
documents produced during Field Verification,
subsequent decision like whether or not to issue
LOI is to be taken.
9. It is further averred in the counter
affidavit that it was found during Field Verification
as follows:
“A. as per registered lease deed
vide document no. 7771 dated
17/07/2017, Mr. Dasrath Chourasiya
leased the land bearing khata no. 1296,
khesra no. 6367, Mouza- Bansbari for
Godown to Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Ansari
(spouse of applicant). After having
perused the lease deed bearing no. 7771
dated. 17.07.2017, it appears that the
lease per-se is conditional. In this lease,
at para no. 04, page no.3 of lease deed,
lease is valid only if the LPG
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
6/18distributorship is allotted otherwise lease
would itself get cancelled. Since Mr.
Sohaib Ahmad Ansari (spouse of
applicant) did not apply for
distributorship, hence lease is itself
cancelled i.e. offered plot is not a valid
offer.
B. as per registered lease deed
vice document no. 7763 dated
17/07/2017, Mr. Dasrath Chourasiya
leased the land bearing khata no. 1296,
Khesra No. 6367, Mouza- Bansbari for
Godown to Mr. Shoaib Ahmad Ansari
(spouse of applicant) After having
perused the lease deed bearing no. 7771
dated. 17.07.2017, it appears that the
Lease per se is conditional. In this lease
at para no. 04, page no.3 of lease deed,
lease is valid only if the LPG
distributorship is allotted otherwise lease
is cancelled itself. Since Mr. Sohaib
Ahmad Ansari (spouse of applicant) did
not apply for distributorship, hence lease
is itself cancelled ie offer plot is not a
valid offer.”
10. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
for the respondents that in line with the guidelines,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
7/18
the FVC committee asked for an alternate land for
godown and showroom vide e-mail dated
15.05.2018 and candidate responded vide mail
dated. 17.05.2018 that her husband did not apply
for LPG distributorship and also she does not have
alternate land for godown and showroom till date.
It is further submitted that the applicant had
submitted, in the form of a notarized affidavit (V
801868 dated 10.05.2018), that if any deficiencies
or discrepancies will be found then she will be fully
responsible and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. would
be within its right to withdraw, the letter of
Intent/terminate the distributor (if already
appointed) and that she would have no claim,
whatsoever, against the Corporation for such
withdrawl/termination. The offered land is not
suitable for construction of showroom for LPG
distributorship, and, accordingly, the proposal for
cancellation of her candidature was approved on
10/06/2018 and the final outcome of field
verification of credential of Mrs KM Saba Firdaus
was informed vide letter of ref
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
8/18
BAO/IOC02313554214082017 dated 05.07.2018. It
is also contended that the final outcome of field
verification of credential of Mrs. KM Saba Firdaus
W/o- Shoaib Ahmad Ansari was informed vide letter
of ref BAO/IOC02313554214082017 dated
05.07.2018 to the registered address as mentioned
in application form. However, the same has been
returned with an endorsement “as address could
not be traced” to Begusarai Area Office on
19/07/2018.
11. The Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that, in the aforementioned
facts and circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is fit and liable to be dismissed.
12. A reply to the counter affidavit was
filed on behalf of the petitioner. It has been stated
that the petitioner submitted original documents
relating to land where in the lease is in the name
of husband of the petitioner and she is covered
within the meaning of “Family Unit”, hence, lease is
in her favour and same can be used as a land for
showroom/Godown by the wife(Petitioner). It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
9/18
further submitted that the order as contained in
Annexure- 10 is not proper in view of the brochure
which has been issued by the IOC, in which
guidelines for selection of LPG distributor has been
given. It is stated that the said guidelines has been
annexed as Annexure- P/16 to the supplementary
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on
14.02.2022. It is further submitted that in the leter
dated 15.05.2018, the petitioner pointed out that
her husband has taken the lease on his name for
her, So that she can apply for LPG
Godown/Showroom. The petitioner only stated that
as on the date of letter, she does not have another
lease land. The petitioner requested to act upon
her lease land as per the definition of family unit,
as defined in the guidelines issued by IOC.
13. A supplementary affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner in which, more or
less he has reiterated the statements made in the
writ petition.
14. Heard the Learned counsel for the
parties and perused the records of the case.
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
10/18
15. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
for the respondents that the admitted laches on
the part of the writ petitioner were acknowledged
by herself as per her Application form; she offered
unsuitable land, ignoring the instructions
mentioned in Advertisement notice issued by the
respondent Corporation, whereby the all applicants
were specifically advised to go through the
Brochure carefully before submitting an
Application-form, hence the alleged defect in the
Application form with regard to offered land is not
fit to be rectified, after the Technical Evaluation
team found the land unsuitable during technical
evaluation, which was conducted to ascertain the
suitability of the land as per prescribed norms, and
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Brochure, i.e, the Dealer Selection Guidelines of
the respondent Corporation.
16. The Learned counsel for the
respondent Corporation submitted that, in view of
the above, no cogent cause of action is available
against respondent Corporation nor does the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
11/18
petitioner possess any legal right to challenge the
selection procedure after having participated in the
same, hence, the writ petition is fit to be
dismissed.
17. It is further contended by the Learned
counsel for the Corporation that the writ petitioner
also suppressed material facts, by not disclosing
that the online complaint dated 16.05.2020 made
by her, which was disposed of by the respondent
Corporation and the same was communicated vide
letter dated 20.05.2020, through registered post,
whereby the claim of petitioner was rejected. The
said reasoned order has not been challenged in
the present writ petition, hence, the petitioner is
not entitled for any relief as sought for, in the writ
petition, due to suppression of material facts. It is
further submitted that the petitioner neither
possesses any legal right nor locus standi to
maintain this writ petition, nor does have any
cause of action.
18. The Learned counsel for the
Corporation further submitted that the status of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
12/18
the petitioner is merely that of an unsuccessful
applicant, eliminated from the selection procedure
for not fulfilling one of the most important norms of
selection that of possessing suitable land
19. In support of the case of the
respondent Corporation, the Learned counsel has
relied on the judgments of the Division Bench of
this Court reported in (1) 2012 (2) PLJR 783
(M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Raj
Kumar Jha & ors), (2) 2019(3) PLJR 1042 (The
Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. Vs. The Rupesh
Kumar Verma) and order passed in LPA No. 925
of 2012 (Mukesh Pandey Vs. The Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation & Ors.).
20. The Learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the terms and
conditions of the advertisement, the Brochure and
the requirement of documents as per the settled
guidelines were not complied with by the
petitioner, hence the dealership could not be
awarded to the petitioner. Similar issues have
already been settled by the Division Bench of this
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
13/18
Court in 2012 (2) PLJR 783 and 2019(3) PLJR
1042 (supra).
21. For better appreciation of the case,
the observations made by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in 2012 (2) PLJR 783 (supra) are quoted
hereinbelow:
“8. We are of the opinion that
the Corporation being the State within
the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution is supposed to act fairly,
reasonably and uniformly and has to be
objective in its approach. Once the
standard is set out in the advertisement,
the Corporation has to adhere to the said
standard without any variation. In case,
the Corporation allows any alteration the
same will amount to subjective approach
which is frowned upon by the Courts time
and again. To remain objective the
Corporation is required to adhere to the
standards mentioned in the
advertisement. In the present case, it is
not in dispute that the application made
by the writ petitioner was not in
conformation with the requirements
mentioned in the advertisement. In our
opinion, the Corporation was justified in
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
14/18rejecting the application of the writ
petitioner.
9. The learned Single Judge
ought not to have interfered with the
decision of the Corporation which was
taken in consonance with the terms and
conditions contained in the
advertisement. Besides; may be, in the
present case it was a mere typographical
error. However, there might be a case of
mischief or misrepresentation also. It is
difficult to draw a line where an error
ends and a mischief or misrepresentation
begins. The best way to avoid
discrimination is strict adherence to the
standards mentioned in the
advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons
we hold that the Corporation was
justified in rejecting the application of
the writ petitioner. The Appeal is allowed.
The impugned judgment and order dated
28th January, 2010 passed by the
learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 13196
of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 13196 is
dismissed.”
22. Further the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in 2019(3) PLJR 1042 (supra) has
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
15/18
held as follows:
“We have considered the
submissions raised and we find that the
advertisement categorically prescribes
that a candidate would be rendered
ineligible if the information given
amounts to withholding or concealing
any fact or tendering of an incorrect
information or a false information that
would result in affecting the eligibility of
the candidate. The three categories
which have been specifically provided
have, therefore, to be read as indicated
therein and, in our considered opinion,
any incorrect information would affect
the eligibility of a candidate. In the
instant case, it is admitted on record
that the information given by the
respondent-petitioner with regard to the
plot of the land and khata number in the
application form was an incorrect
information and was, therefore, a wrong
information. The plot number and the
khata number was 123 and 356
respectively. This mistake was accepted
by the respondent-petitioner himself
when he tendered the rectification deed
on 12th of June, 2018 long after the
expiry of the last date of the application
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
16/18
form. There is a substantial variation in
the number of khata and the plot that
was subsequently tendered as Khata No.
300 with Plot No. 122 and the same, in
our opinion, is not such an error which
can be termed as a typographical error
at least in the application form of the
respondent-petitioner. The error may
have occurred in the deed for which the
respondent-petitioner is clearly
responsible and this stands admitted by
him in view of the rectification deed
tendered later on. Consequently, the
information as contained in the
application form and the deed which was
filed along with the same palpably gave
an incorrect information with regard to
the khata and the plot number. This
therefore disentitled the respondent-
petitioner from being treated as an
eligible candidate. The conclusion drawn
by the learned Single Judge bereft of
these facts therefore cannot stand the
scrutiny of law. Shri K. D. Chatterji,
learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants is, therefore, correct in his
submission that the Division Bench
Judgement as relied upon by the
appellants in the case of Indian Oil
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
17/18
Corporation Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Jha (supra)
squarely applies on the facts of the
present case.”
23. In light of the legal proposition laid
down in the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of
the considered view that once a standard is set out
in the advertisement, the Corporation is bound to
adhere to the said standard without any variation.
In case if the Corporation permits any alteration, it
would amount to a subjective approach, which has
been disapproved by the Courts time and again. In
the present case, the petitioner through her
application form, offered unsuitable land, which
was rejected by the respondents. This Court finds
no error or irregularity in the decision of the
Corporation which was in strict consonance with
the terms and conditions contained in the
advertisement.
24. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim
any right for consideration of her application. This
Court finds no error or irregularity in the issuance
of the letter dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure-R/3 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14089 of 2018 dt.20-06-2025
18/18
the counter affidavit) by which the candidature of
the petitioner for the award of LPG distributorship
at Bansbari in District Araria under Open (W)
category was rejected, nor in the decision of the
respondents not to grant the Letter of Intent to the
petitioner.
25. In view of the above discussion, this
Court is of the considerable view that the Writ
petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of
merits.
26. In result, Writ petition is dismissed.
27. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.06.2025 Transmission Date