Case Background
The case arose from a selection process for a Kisan Seva Kendra dealership of Indian Oil Corporation Limited in District Nalanda, Bihar.
Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited applications for a dealership at a specified location. The site was to be within 5 kilometres from Mayapur–Mohabbatpur More towards Giriyak on State Highway 71 in Nalanda district.
The petitioner and respondent no. 5 both applied for this dealership. The selection was made through a draw of lots, in which respondent no. 5 was declared selected.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by this outcome, used the grievance redressal mechanism provided under the selection brochure of Indian Oil Corporation Limited. She approached the competent officers of the Corporation alleging that the land offered by respondent no. 5 for the dealership was not suitable.
Her main objections were that the title of the land offered by respondent no. 5 was not valid and that the land did not have the required size as per the advertisement. The General Manager-incharge of Indian Oil Corporation Limited rejected her complaint by order dated 12.06.2020.
Challenging this order, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 557 of 2021 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, hearing the matter through video conference on 17.12.2021 due to COVID-19 restrictions, focused on the dispute regarding the size and eligibility of the land offered by respondent no. 5 for the Kisan Seva Kendra.
The advertisement itself was not produced on record by the petitioner. However, the Court noted that the impugned order dated 12.06.2020 clearly mentioned the land requirement as per the advertisement. According to the impugned order, the required size of the land was 35 meters by 35 meters, that is 1225 square meters.
The Court recorded that, after receiving the petitioner’s complaint, Indian Oil Corporation Limited had conducted an investigation. As part of this process, a joint measurement of the land offered by respondent no. 5 was carried out on 02.08.2019.
This joint measurement was conducted in the presence of the Anchal Amin and the petitioner herself. Minutes of the meeting were prepared and signed by all persons present, including the petitioner. These facts were mentioned in the impugned order.
The petitioner, in her writ application, admitted that such joint measurement of the plot had taken place on 02.08.2019. This admission appears in paragraph 6 of the writ petition.
Despite this earlier measurement, the petitioner argued before the Court that respondent no. 5 had originally offered 40 decimals of land for the dealership. According to the petitioner, 9 decimals out of this 40 decimals had already been acquired by the State of Bihar for the construction of State Highway 71.
On this basis, the petitioner submitted that, after deducting 9 decimals, only 31 decimals remained. She contended that this remaining land did not fulfil the land requirement and, therefore, the selection of respondent no. 5 was invalid. Accordingly, she claimed that her complaint should not have been rejected by the order dated 12.06.2020.
On the other side, counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Limited relied on the contents of the impugned order. He reiterated that, as per the advertisement, the requirement was for land measuring 35 meters by 35 meters, which comes to 1225 square meters.
He further submitted that 1225 square meters is equivalent to 30.270 decimals. Therefore, the Corporation’s requirement was for about 30.270 decimals, not for 40 decimals of land as claimed by the petitioner.
Counsel for the Corporation argued that even if, for the sake of argument, it were assumed that 9 decimals out of the 40 decimals of land offered by respondent no. 5 had been acquired, the remaining 31 decimals of land would still exceed the Corporation’s requirement of 30.270 decimals. Hence, according to him, the land offered by respondent no. 5 met the requirement.
The petitioner sought to rely on a report dated 08.02.2020 of the Anchal Amin, addressed to the Circle Officer, Katrisarai, Nalanda. This report mentioned that 9 decimals of the land in question had been acquired for construction of State Highway 71.
The Court, however, observed that there was no material to show that this report dated 08.02.2020 had ever been brought to the notice of Indian Oil Corporation Limited before the rejection of the petitioner’s complaint on 12.06.2020. This gap was important for the Court because judicial review of an administrative decision generally looks at what was available to the decision-maker at the time of the decision.
The Court then considered the situation “in any view of the matter”. It emphasised that the impugned order itself recorded that a joint measurement of the land had been carried out earlier in the presence of the petitioner. The result of that measurement was that the land offered by respondent no. 5 satisfied the land size requirement of the Corporation.
Given that the Corporation’s requirement was 35 meters by 35 meters, that is, 1225 square meters or 30.270 decimals, and that even the petitioner’s own calculations left 31 decimals of land, the Court saw no basis to interfere.
Thus, the High Court held that the land offered by respondent no. 5 had been duly measured with the petitioner present and was found adequate for the dealership. There was no evidence that Indian Oil Corporation Limited had ignored any material then before it, or that its decision was arbitrary or illegal.
On this reasoning, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s challenge to the General Manager’s order lacked merit. It refused to disturb either the decision on the complaint or the selection of respondent no. 5 for the Kisan Seva Kendra dealership.
Accordingly, the writ application was dismissed as having no merit.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for people who participate in dealership selections and similar government-related allotments.
First, it shows that courts rely heavily on the official measurements and procedures carried out in the presence of all concerned. Here, a joint measurement of land was done with the petitioner present and signing the minutes. Later objections, without strong new proof, were not accepted.
Second, the judgment highlights that applicants must understand the exact requirement mentioned in the advertisement. The Court accepted the Corporation’s figure of 35 meters by 35 meters (about 30.270 decimals) as the real requirement, not the 40 decimals claimed by the petitioner.
Third, it underlines that if someone wants to challenge such administrative decisions, any crucial document, like the Anchal Amin’s report in this case, must be brought to the authority’s notice at the right time. Producing it later in court may not help.
For future dealership applicants and landowners, the decision reinforces that transparent measurements and timely communication with the authorities are essential. The Patna High Court will not normally interfere if the corporation has followed its own rules and the basic requirements are met.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the land offered by the selected candidate for the Kisan Seva Kendra dealership failed to meet the minimum land requirement, making the selection invalid.
Answer: No. The Court held that the land, as jointly measured in the petitioner’s presence, fulfilled Indian Oil Corporation Limited’s requirement of 35 meters x 35 meters (1225 square meters, about 30.270 decimals). - Issue: Whether the Patna High Court should interfere with the General Manager’s order dated 12.06.2020 rejecting the petitioner’s complaint against the dealership allotment.
Answer: No. The Court found no ground to interfere since the Corporation had conducted a proper investigation, the joint measurement supported its conclusion, and there was no material shown to have been ignored at the time of decision. - Issue: Whether the later Anchal Amin report dated 08.02.2020 could invalidate the Corporation’s earlier decision on the petitioner’s complaint.
Answer: No. The Court noted there was no evidence that this report was ever placed before the Corporation before the impugned order was passed, and in any case, the remaining land still met the Corporation’s requirement.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely on any other decided case. No prior case law is cited.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 557 of 2021
Case Title: Nilu Sinha v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 (4) PLJR 185
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh; Hon’ble Mr Justice Madhuresh Prasad
Date of Judgment: 17-12-2021
Advocates: Mr Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the respondents
Nature of the Case: Writ petition challenging rejection of grievance against allotment of Kisan Seva Kendra dealership by Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Link to Judgment: https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNTU3IzIwMjEjMSNO-inWr2w4QL4U=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
