This case, heard in the Patna High Court, revolves around a dispute between an aspiring businessman, Ajay Kumar Yadav, and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), a major player in India's petroleum industry. The heart of the matter concerns Yadav's application for a retail outlet dealership – essentially, a petrol pump – and its subsequent rejection by IOCL.
In 2018, IOCL advertised an opportunity to acquire petrol pump dealerships at specific locations, including one between Shivrampur Chowk and Peer Mazar in the Katihar district. Yadav, seeing a chance to establish his own business, applied for this dealership under the "Group-1" category.
To understand the issue, it's crucial to grasp the land ownership requirements for these dealerships. Group-1 applicants, like Yadav, were those who possessed suitable land at the advertised location. This land could be owned by the applicant or held under a long-term lease. Importantly, land owned by a family member was also acceptable, provided the applicant submitted a consent letter from that family member.
Adding another layer of complexity, applicants had to furnish a "confirmatory letter" from an advocate. This letter (Appendix III B) was meant to detail the land's ownership, the documents supporting that ownership, and the specific land category (Group 1 or 2).
Yadav's application hinged on the fact that the land was owned by his mother. He submitted the application in December 2018, and after a draw of lots, he was initially selected for the dealership in June 2019. However, IOCL later cancelled his selection. The reason? A discrepancy concerning the advocate's confirmatory letter.
IOCL argued that the confirmatory letter (Appendix III B) should have been dated either before the application submission date or on the same date. Yadav's letter was dated July 1, 2019, which was after he submitted his application. IOCL maintained that Yadav had failed to comply with the selection terms.
Yadav's legal team countered this, asserting that he had submitted the confirmatory letter with his initial application. They further argued that since Yadav had provided the letter, even if belatedly, he had fulfilled the requirements.
The Patna High Court, however, sided with IOCL. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the stipulated conditions in the application process. The court noted that Yadav could not conclusively prove that he had submitted a correctly dated confirmatory letter with his application.
This case illustrates the complexities involved in competitive application processes, especially those regulated by large corporations. It underscores the need for applicants to meticulously follow all instructions and provide accurate documentation within the specified timelines. While Yadav's aspirations for a petrol pump dealership were denied, the case serves as a cautionary tale for others navigating similar procedures.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTIzOSMyMDIwIzEjTg==-tRI--ak1--fUXg49Y=
