Madhya Pradesh High Court
Saransh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 May, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25030
1 WP-6450-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 17th OF MAY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 6450 of 2025
SARANSH YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mahendra Pateriya - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aditya Adhikari - Senior Advocate with Shri Kaustubh
Chaturvedi- Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Deepak Tiwari - Advocate for respondent No.4.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging revise select list contained in Annexure-P/9 and making
a prayer for quashing the same.
2. Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner had
participated for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Indian Oil
Corporation. Petitioner has offered a lease land for opening of Retail Outlet
Dealership of Petrol Pump. Petitioner received an e-mail dated 06.03.2024 to
upload required document and information up to 27.03.2024 which was done
by petitioner. Petitioner was selected for appointment of Retail Outlet
Dealership as name of petitioner occurred in select list. However, select list
was cancelled and another revise list was prepared and respondent No.4
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 03-06-2025
14:17:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25030
2 WP-6450-2025
namely Ashish Jain was issued letter of intent. Respondent No.4 was not
eligible for being selected as he has leased out the land in favour of Bharat
Petrolium and not in favour of Indian Oil Corporation. Selection of
respondent No.4 is arbitrary and malafide and perverse to law and not
sustainable. In these circumstances, prayer is made for quashing of revise
select list i.e. Annexure-P/9 and to issue direction to respondents authorities
to issue letter of intent in favour of petitioner.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Indian Oil
Corporation submitted that petitioner is having efficacious an alternate
remedy available to him under Clause-18. Petitioner ought to have
approached Grievance Redressal Committee. There is also suppression of
fact by petitioner. Second mail dated 01.05.2024 was suppressed by him,
whereby detailed reasons were given cancelling the candidature of petitioner.
Petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. It is submitted that
advertisement was for location at Village Samnapur Mal, Tehsil Tendukheda,
Damoh in open category. Location was for DC Type which means dealer
owned site. This type of dealership is known as ‘B’ sites. Offered land and
super structure will be developed by the dealer. Only pump, tank automation,
signages etc. shall be provided by corporation. Selection is made through
online application and assessment process. It is further submitted that
inclusion of name in the select list is only provisional selection by draw of
lots. It is submitted that documents which were uploaded by petitioner were
illegible. Despite e-mail sent to petitioner on 06.03.2024, he failed to upload
the documents by 27.03.2024. Since petitioner did not upload the documents,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 03-06-2025
14:17:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25030
3 WP-6450-2025
therefore, candidature was cancelled and e-mail dated 01.05.2024 was sent to
petitioner which was suppressed by him. Submissions made by petitioner
that documents were uploaded by 27.03.2024 is factually incorrect. Reliance
is placed on the screen-shot of the portal i.e. Annexure-R2-5. Clause of
sublease is irrelevant as dealership type is DC outlet. There is no malafide or
arbitrariness in action of respondents.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. On going through the pleadings made by petitioner, it is found that
e-mail was received by petitioner on 06.03.2024 to upload required
documents by 27.03.2024 and documents were uploaded by him and
petitioner was selected, but no specific pleadings has been made by
petitioner that when documents required by respondents as per e-mail dated
06.03.2024 was submitted by him. On the contrary respondent No.2 had filed
documents i.e. e-mail dated 06.03.2024 sent to petitioner. In said e-mail
petitioner was asked to submit documents by 27.03.2024. In said e-mail it
has been mentioned that uploaded copy of documents is not clear and not
readable and advice was given to reload clear and readable copy of the
documents. Another e-mail was sent to petitioner on 01.05.2024 in which it
was informed to him that no response was received from him and documents
were not uploaded. In another e-mail which was sent on 01.01.2024, screen-
shot of the portal which is produced before this Court as Annexure R2-4
shows that documents has not been uploaded by 27.03.2024.
6. There is disputed question of facts regarding uploading of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 03-06-2025
14:17:22
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:25030
4 WP-6450-2025
documents before 27.03.2024. Contrary stand is taken by filing affidavits.
Said disputed facts cannot be decided in writ petition.
7. Petitioner is at liberty to approach Grievance Redressal Forum and
raise all grounds there.
8. Till decision by Grievance Redressal Forum, status-quo be
maintained regarding allotment of retail outlet dealership. Interim relief
granted in favour of petitioner will operate till final orders are passed by
Grievance Redressal Forum. Opportunity of hearing shall also be provided to
petitioner and respondent no.4 before Grievance Redressal Forum.
9. Writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid direction.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
sp/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR
PATEL
Signing time: 03-06-2025
14:17:22