Patna High Court
Smt. Janaki Ranjan Yadav vs The Union Of India And Ors on 25 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1475 of 2018
======================================================
Smt. Janaki Ranjan Yadav Wife of Shri Priya Ranjan Yadav, Permanent
Resident of Village-P.O.-Jaijore P.S.-Andar, District-Siwan, resident at
Hasanpura, P.O.-Hasanpura, P.S.-M.H. Nagar, Prakhand-Hasanpura, District-
Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Ist Floor, Shahi
Bhawan Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001
3. The Deuty Managing Director, IOCL, Ist Floor, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition
Road, Patna-800001.
4. The General Manager, LPG-S, Patna Ao, IOCL 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jay
Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Ch
5. The Deputy General Manager LPG-S, Patna-AO, LOCL, First Floor, Shahi
Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patn
6. Chief Area Manager, Patna Ao, Indian Iol Corporation Ltd. Ist Floor, Shahi
Bhawan, Exhibition Road,
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Dr. Umashankar Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Kamala Kant Tiwary, Advocate
For the UOI : Dr. K.N.Singh, ASG
For the IOCL : Mr. Ankit Katriar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 25-07-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
"(i) For quashing the order dated
3.10.2017
and 4.12.2017 (Annexure-10
and 10(1)) issued under the Signature
of DGM (LPG- S), Patna AO, IOCL,
whereby and whereunder the
petitioner’s application for Award of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
2/15
Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG (RGGLV)
Distributionship at Hasanpura, District-
Siwan under open category (Application
serial no. PAT-245-08) advertised on
17.10.2009, cancelling the candidature
of the petitioner by the respondents
IOCL, Patna.
(II) be pleased to direct the competent
authority of IOCL to select the
petitioner for such scheme of the
RGGLV Distributionship, issued under
the Advertisement dated 17.10.2009,
as the petitioner fulfilled all the norms
and conditions as per advertisement.
(III) be further pleased to stop the
further process of selection under the
said scheme during pendency of the
writ application.
(IV) be pleased to pass any such other
order or orders as your Lordships may
deem fit and proper for the ends of
justice.”
2. The brief facts of the case is that the
petitioner made an application on 24.11.2009,
pursuant to an Advertisement dated 17.10.2009
for appointment under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG
Vitrak Scheme under the open category at
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
3/15
Hasanpura in the district of Siwan.
3. It is submitted by the Learned counsel
for the petitioner that during scrutiny, an objection
was raised by the respondents on 13.01.2010
regarding the petitioner’s residence certificate for
which the petitioner obtained a fresh residence
certificate issued by the concerned Circle Officer
on 29.01.2010, confirming her residence within the
advertised location and submitted the same to the
respondents. Consequently, she was declared
eligible to participate in the draw of lot.
4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that the petitioner participated in
multiple draws held from 2010 to 2014. In the
fourth draw conducted on 28.06.2014, she was
declared the winner. Subsequently, the
respondents conducted a verification of the
petitioner’s land documents and raised an
objection regarding the lease period of 15 years for
the land offered by the petitioner, thereby
demanding alternate land documents.
5. It is the contention of the Learned
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
4/15
counsel for the petitioner that despite of
submitting the required documents, including
alternate land ownership papers, survey maps,
sketch maps, and other documents as demanded
by the respondents between 2015 to 2017, the
petitioner’s claim was rejected without proper
hearing. The respondents issued letters dated
03.10.2017 (Annexure-10) and 04.12.2017
(Annexure-10(i)) rejecting the petitioner’s claim on
vague grounds, including alleged non-residence at
the time of application, an issue that was never
raised during initial scrutiny or earlier draws.
6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is a resident of
Hasanpura, and possesses land in her name or as
heir to her late grandmother’s (Nani) property,
thereby fulfilling all criteria under the RGGLV
Scheme. It is contended that the rejection was
arbitrary, malafide, and contrary to the scheme
guidelines, which require only proof of residence
and not permanent domicile or continuous
inhabitancy. Therefore, the petitioner prays for
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
5/15
quashing of the respondents’ rejection orders as
illegal, unjust, and contrary to law, and seeks her
rightful selection under the RGGLV Scheme.
7. The respondents Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (IOCL) filed a counter affidavit stating that
an advertisement was published on 17.10.2009 for
the appointment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak
at Hasanpura, Siwan, among other locations. Out
of 48 applications received for the dealership in
question out of it, seven candidates were found
eligible for the draw. After cancellation of selected
candidates on three occasions, a fourth draw was
held on 28.06.2014, in which the petitioner was
declared selected. Following her selection, a Field
Verification of Credentials (FVC) was conducted.
The FVC revealed several discrepancies, which are
as follows:
“(A). Residence certificate No.
S/SIWAN/2009/RES/3251 submitted along
with application mentioned as resident of
Jaijore, which is not an advertised location.
However, later on, she has also submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
6/15
a residence certificate No. 257 dated
29.01.2010 issued by the CO, Hasanpura
mentioned her as temporary resident of
Hasanpura. It is relevant to state that the
subject residence certificate was issued
after the date of application.
B. In the affidavit dated
19.11.2009 as per format Appendix-A, and
submitted along with the application, the
petitioner declared herself as resident of
Jaijore which is not an advertised location.
C. In the affidavit dated
23.11.2009, as per format Appendix-B, and
submitted along with the application, the
petitioner declared herself as resident of
Jaijore which is not an advertised location.
D. In the affidavit dated
19.11.2009, as per format Appendix-C, and
submitted along with the application, the
petitioner declared herself as resident of
Jaijore which is not an advertised location.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
7/15
E. The land offered by the
petitioner, bearing khata no. 239, survey
no. 167, in the application was found to be
through a registered lease deed of 15
years vide doc. No. 14615 dated
17.11.2009. This does not comply with the
advertised condition of clear ownership
w.r.t. to the title of land for RGGLV
location.”
8. The Learned counsel for the respondents
contended that the FVC committee requested the
petitioner to submit alternate land ownership
documents as per policy vide letter dated
12.12.2015. Despite repeated reminders over the
following years, the petitioner failed to establish
ownership of suitable land in her name or in the
name of eligible family member as per policy
requirements. However, the petitioner submitted a
sale deed in the name of her late grandmother but
she failed to provide the mandatory No Objection
Certificate (NOC) due to her grandmother’s
demise. It is further submitted that multiple
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
8/15
opportunities were granted to the petitioner and
having no other option the respondent cancelled
the candidature vide letters dated 03.10.2017 and
04.12.2017 for non-compliance with the essential
conditions of residency and land ownership under
the RGGLV Scheme.
9. The Learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that all candidates selected in the
previous draws were similarly disqualified based on
the findings of FVC. Further, in line with the
direction of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,
no subsequent draw for the Hasanpura location is
conducted.
10. 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 / residential certificate 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
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
9/15
an Application-form, hence the alleged defects are
not fit to be rectified. The Technical Evaluation
team conducted evaluation to ascertain the
suitability of the candidature as per prescribed
norms, and in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Brochure/Dealer Selection
Guidelines of the respondent Corporation.
11. The Learned counsel for the
respondent Corporation submitted that no cogent
cause of action is available against respondent
Corporation nor does the petitioner possess any
legal right to challenge the selection procedure
after having participated in the same, and prayed
to dismiss the Writ petition.
12. 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 2012 (2) PLJR 783 (M/s
Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Raj Kumar
Jha & ors), 2019(3) PLJR 1042 (The Indian Oil
Corporation & Ors. Vs. The Rupesh Kumar
Verma) and order passed in LPA No. 925 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
10/15
2012 (Mukesh Pandey Vs. The Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation & Ors.).
13. For better appreciation of the case,
the observations made by the Hon’ble Division
Bench in Indian Oil Corporation Limited
(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.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
11/15rejecting 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.”
14. Further the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in The Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
12/15
(supra) has 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 cancealing
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.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
13/15
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.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
14/15
Corporation Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Jha (supra)
squarely applies on the facts of the
present case.”
15. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondents.
16. 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/
residential certificate which was rejected by the
respondents.
17. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim
any right for consideration of her application. This
Court finds no error or irregularity in order dated
3.10.2017 (Annexure10) and 4.12.2017 (Annexure
Patna High Court CWJC No.1475 of 2018 dt.25-07-2025
15/15
10(i) by which the candidature of the petitioner
for the award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG
Distributorship at Hasanpura was rejected.
18. In view of the above discussion, the
Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. In result, Writ petition is dismissed as
devoid of merits.
20. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stand disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 31.07.2025 Transmission Date