Bombay High Court
Pradnya Nitin Patil vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... on 23 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:25911-DB
1 WP / 888 / 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 888 OF 2023
Pradnya Nitin Patil
Age : 41 Years, Occu : Business,
R/o.A/p. Kodgaon,
Tq. Bhadgaon, Dist. Jalgaon .. Petitioner
Versus
1] Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Manmad Installation, P.B. No. 1,
P.O. Manmad, Panewadi,
Dist. Nashik 423 104
The Territorial Manager (Retail),
Manmad Retail Territory
2] The Area Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Inspection and Documents Verification,
Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon .. Respondents
...
Mr. Prashant R. Katneshwarkar, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner a/w Mr. P.S.
Kundalwadikar, Advocate h/f. Mr. A.R. Syed, Advocate for petitioner
Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 : Mr. A.P. Bhandari
...
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 23 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : MANISH PITALE, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of
learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2 WP / 888 / 2023
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the
respondents, in abruptly withdrawing Letter Of Intent (LOI) issued in
favour of the petitioner for establishing a Retail Dealer Outlet at
Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides, Dist. Jalgaon. It is the case of
the petitioner that upon the LOI being issued in her favour, further steps
were taken by the respondents for installation and operationalization of
the said Retail Outlet Dealership (Petrol Pump) and when the said
outlet was at the verge of being started, the LOI was withdrawn in an
arbitrary manner. According to the petitioner, for no fault on her part,
she has been penalized by the respondents.
3. The respondents issued an advertisement on 24.11.2018
for establishing Retail Dealer Outlets at various locations, including the
aforesaid location at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides, Dist.
Jalgaon. This particular proposed outlet was included at Serial No.
425. The said advertisement issued by the respondents themselves
classified the said Outlet as a Rural Retail Outlet.
4. The petitioner applied for allotment of the said outlet as
she was complying with all the necessary requirements. The petitioner
was found eligible and upon her application being processed, she was
selected for allotment of the said Outlet. Spot inspection was
conducted by the officers of the respondents and upon positive reports
3 WP / 888 / 2023
being submitted, the aforesaid LOI was issued on 22.02.2019, in favour
of the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was directed to
deposit necessary security deposit and she, accordingly, deposited an
amount of Rs.3,60,000/-, as per the Demand Draft dated 26.02.2022.
She also paid Rs.40,000/- through online process and, thereafter, paid
a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards non-refundable deposit as
per Demand Draft dated 18.02.2022. Thus, payments made by the
petitioner, are undisputed.
5. The petitioner obtained no-objection certificates from
various departments, including the Public Works Department, Town
Planning Department, the Gram Panchayat, as also the Maharashtra
State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. The Superintendent of
Police, Jalgaon also submitted a verification report. The petitioner had
already submitted a bank guarantee on 08.11.2019 with the Public
Works Department. The District Magistrate of Jalgaon also issued No-
Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the relevant Petroleum Rules in
favour of the petitioner.
6. Since all the formalities were completed, establishment of
the Retail Outlet was undertaken and even a tank was sent for
installation at the site of the Outlet (Petrol Pump) in March 2020. The
respondents called upon the petitioner, to place an order for stock of
4 WP / 888 / 2023
petroleum products and in that context, she deposited a further amount
of Rs.2,10,000/- in February, 2020. In fact, the tank was even partly
installed, when the respondents sent a message to the petitioner that
the said tank was required urgently at another location. Consequently,
the partially installed tank was un-installed and taken away.
7. Since further positive action was not forthcoming from the
respondents, the petitioner followed up the matter. But, for
considerable period of time, there was no response from the
respondents. In that light, the petitioner was constrained to issue a
legal notice through Advocate on 28.11.2022 to the respondents. It is
in this backdrop, when the respondents did not come forward to explain
to the petitioner as to why the Retail Outlet was not being
operationalized, she was constrained to file the instant writ petition.
8. Mr. Prashant R. Katneshwarkar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the present writ petition
was filed, from the affidavit in reply of the respondent no. 2, the
reasons why the respondents did not operationalize the said Outlet,
came to the fore. According to the respondents, although the said
Outlet was classified as a Rural Retail Outlet, the land offered by the
petitioner, was on a State highway and as per the relevant rules and
5 WP / 888 / 2023
regulations, a Rural Retail Outlet cannot be established on a State
highway.
9. It was vehemently submitted that the advertisement issued
by the respondents themselves gave the exact location of the proposed
Retail Outlet as Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides, Dist. Jalgaon at
Serial No. 425 in the said advertisement. It was not as if the petitioner
misled the respondents, in offering the land on the said location, which
did not satisfy the requirement of it being a Rural Retail Outlet. The
officers of the respondents immediately inspected the land offered by
the petitioner, cleared the same as being in terms of the advertisement,
as a result of which, the LOI was issued. The Retail Outlet was fully
established, but for the fact that the tank which was partially installed,
was un-installed at the behest of the respondents and taken away. It
was submitted that the conduct of the respondents, was wholly
arbitrary and for their mistake, the petitioner ought not to suffer.
10. It was further submitted that the respondents are wholly
unjustified in claiming that the petitioner misrepresented or suppressed
facts from the respondents while obtaining the LOI. It was asserted
that all the information provided by the petitioner was in tune with the
requirements of the Retail Outlet at the subject location advertised by
6 WP / 888 / 2023
the respondents and this was even confirmed and verified by the
inspection carried out by the officers of the respondents.
11. It was only when the reply affidavit was placed on record, it
came to the light that the action was initiated by the respondents on the
basis of a complaint submitted by a person concerned with another
such Retail Outlet in the vicinity. It was further submitted that the
respondents cannot be permitted to rely upon Clause 22 of the
brochure for selection of dealers issued by the respondents. The said
Clause pertains to false information, which cannot be invoked against
the petitioner in the admitted position on facts. It was emphasized that
the petitioner is a woman entrepreneur and she has suffered due to the
arbitrary conduct of the respondents.
12. During the course of arguments, it was indicated on behalf
of the respondents, that since the said Retail Outlet was shown as a
Rural Retail Outlet, charges taken from the petitioner were less than
those taken for regular Retail Outlets. In respect of the said issue, the
learned Senior counsel for the petitioner took instructions from the
petitioner and a statement was made that she is ready to deposit the
additional charges and that, therefore, the petition may be allowed, so
that the petitioner can start the said Retail Outlet allotted to her.
7 WP / 888 / 2023
13. In support of the contentions raised in the petition, reliance
was placed on judgments of Division Bench of this Court in Suvarna
Shrikrishna Deore Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And
Ors. (judgment and order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1148 of 2022), Manisha Atul
Borse Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another
(judgment and order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition No.7727 of 2018) and Yogesh Waman
Gaikwad Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (judgment and order dated
22.04.2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.2447 of 2025).
14. On the other hand, Mr. A.P. Bhandari, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents submitted that the subject location of the
Retail Outlet at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides, Dist. Jalgaon,
is undisputably, on a State highway. No Rural Retail Outlet, can be on
a State highway and, therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner, may not be considered. Reliance was placed on Clause 1 of
the Brochure for Selection of Dealers, which provided for guidelines to
the respondents to allot such Retail Outlets. Reliance was also placed
on Clause 22 of the said Brochure pertaining to false information,
which, inter-alia provided that even when incorrect information was
provided by the applicant, the application was liable to be rejected.
8 WP / 888 / 2023
15. It was submitted that in such a situation, when the land
offered by the petitioner for the said Retail Outlet, is admittedly located
on a State highway, the Rural Retail Outlet could never be allotted and
established, thereby indicating that respondents had no alternative but
to withdraw the LOI issued in favour of the petitioner. It was submitted
that the respondents had even offered to immediately refund the
amount deposited by the petitioner and, therefore, she cannot raise
any grievance against the respondents in the facts and circumstances
of the present case. It was emphasized that Rural Retail Outlets are
treated differently from Regular Retail Outlets and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot insist upon restoration of the LOI, as the very basis of
her application could be said to be on an incorrect premise.
16. Reliance was placed on Judgment and order dated
23.11.2021 in Writ Petition No.6254 of 2020 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman s/o Gorakh Waghmare vs.
The Union of India, to contend that in identical circumstances, this
Court had dismissed the writ petition on the basis that such offer by the
petitioner therein, did not satisfy the eligibility criterion. On this basis, it
was submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.
17. We have considered the rival submissions.
9 WP / 888 / 2023
18. We find that the respondents themselves had issued the
advertisement inviting applications for establishment of Retail Outlets
at various places. The advertisement issued by the respondents
pertained to both Regular Retail Outlets and Rural Retail Outlets. At
serial no. 425, in the advertisement, respondents had invited
applications for establishment of a Rural Retail Outlet, even as per the
respondents themselves, at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides,
Dist. Jalgaon. Therefore, the advertisement itself recorded the said
proposed Retail Outlet as a 'Rural Retail Outlet', with the location being
specified in the advertisement.
19. It was on the basis of the said representation made by the
respondents in the advertisement, that the petitioner offered the said
land while applying for allotment of such a Rural Retail Outlet,
deposited all the necessary amounts, including non-refundable deposit
of Rs.5,00,000/- along with her application. In fact, the petitioner,
undisputably, deposited all the amounts demanded by the respondents
for allotment of the said Retail Outlet. In the light of the fact that she
was found eligible in all respects, the LOI was issued in her favour.
20. The LOI was issued only after the officers of the
respondents conducted spot inspection of the spot offered by the
petitioner and after being fully satisfied with the same. It is a matter of
10 WP / 888 / 2023
record that the petitioner, upon such LOI being issued in her favour,
obtained No-Objection Certificates from all the concerned departments,
including a certificate from the District Magistrate of Jalgaon under
Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules.
21. The infrastructure for establishing such a Rural Retail
Outlet, was established by the petitioner at the site and even the tank
for storing the petroleum products was partially installed at the site. In
fact, the petitioner indisputably, deposited a further amount of
Rs.2,10,000/- for placing order in respect of the petroleum products.
Having reached such an advanced stage of establishing and
operationalizing the Retail Outlet, the respondents arbitrarily took away
the partially installed tank under the excuse that it was required at
some other place. Thereafter, the respondents refused to even
respond to the urgent representations made by the petitioner, who is a
woman entrepreneur, for seeking information as to why the
respondents were not going forward in the matter.
22. The petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice to the
respondents on 28.11.2022 and eventually, she was constrained to file
the present writ petition in the year 2023. We find that the conduct of
the respondents is arbitrary, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
11 WP / 888 / 2023
23. A perusal of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents shows that the facts and circumstances were undisputed
by the respondents. In fact, paragraph no. 3 of the affidavit in reply of
respondent no. 2, reads as follows :-
"03. I say that, there is no dispute about the following facts.
i. Advertisement dated 25.11.2018 was published for
various locations including location "At Sr. No.425, Kalgaon to
Tarwade (Kh) on both sides, Dist. Jalgaon in Rural category.
ii. The location was advertised in Rural category.
iii. Selection process is governed by the Brochure for
Selection of Dealers for Rural and Regular Retail Outlets dated
24.11.2018, hereinafter referred to as "Brochure".
iv. 'The General Conditions pertaining to advertisement' of
the brochure provides that the company reserves the right to
cancel/withdraw/amend the advertisement or extend the due
date at its sole discretion weithout assigning any reason.
v. The petitioner herein filed an application in response to
the advertisement on 17.12.2018. The petitionere was single
applicant in Group - 1 Category; hence shhe was selected.
vii. Letter of Intent dated 22.02.2019 (P-34) was issued in
favour of the petitioner. Said Letter of Intent is subject to
conditions inter alia that 'This letter is merely a letter of intent
and is not to be construed as a 'firm offer' of dealership to you'."
24. Thus, the respondents have themselves conceded to the
fact that their own advertisement categorized the location of the Retail
Outlet in the rural category and specified the location at serial no. 425
as Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides, Dist. Jalgaon. It is also
admitted that the LOI was issued in favour of the petitioner. But, the
respondents seem to be harping upon the fact that the LOI was liable
12 WP / 888 / 2023
to be cancelled or withdrawn as per the sole discretion of the
respondent if any information was found to have been suppressed or
stated incorrectly by the applicant / petitioner. In this regard, much
emphasis was placed on Clause 22 of the aforesaid brochure which
pertains to false information. The said Clause 22, reads as follows :-
" 22. FALSE INFORMATION
If any statement made in the application or in the documents
enclosed therewith or subsequently submitted in pursuance of the
application by the candidate at any stage is found to have been
suppressed / misrepresented / incorrect or false, then the
application is liable to be rejected without assigning any reason
and in case the applicant has been appointed as a dealer, the
dealership is liable to be terminated. In such cases the
candidate / dealer shall have no claim whatsoever against the
respective Oil Company."
25. The respondents have further stated in their affidavit in
reply, that a complaint was received from a third person in March 2020
that the subject Retail Outlet was being illegally constructed on a State
highway, while the advertisement was for Rural Retail Outlet and that
such an Outlet cannot be located on a State highway as per the
brochure. It is then stated that the respondents verified from the Public
Works Department as regards the status of the road on which the said
Retail Outlet was being established by the petitioner and it came to
light that the said road was indeed a State highway. In this backdrop, it
was emphasized on behalf of the respondents that since the LOI could
be withdrawn unilaterally, if information provided by the applicant was
13 WP / 888 / 2023
found to be incorrect, no fault could be found with the action
undertaken by the respondents.
26. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, no fault can be found with the petitioner and it
cannot be alleged that she misrepresented or suppressed vital
information or that she indulged in falsity or that she gave incorrect
information while pursuing her application for allotment of the Rural
Retail Outlet, in pursuance of the said advertisement issued by the
respondents.
27. We are of the opinion that in such circumstances, clause
22 of the brochure, cannot be invoked by the respondents. The
location of the Retail Outlet was categorized by the respondents
themselves in the advertisement as a Rural Retail Outlet and hence,
there was no question of the petitioner having provided any incorrect
information to the respondents while pursuing her application.
28. The land offered by the petitioner was inspected by the
officers of the respondents and upon being fully satisfied that the
petitioner satisfied the requirements as per the brochure and the
advertisement issued by the respondents themselves, the LOI was
issued in her favour. The Retail Outlet was established and when it
was on the verge of being operationalized, the impugned actions were
14 WP / 888 / 2023
undertaken by the respondents. Nothing could be more arbitrary than
the conduct of the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, particularly when they were dealing with a woman
entrepreneur.
29. The respondents cannot be permitted to hide behind
Clause 22 of the brochure or the undertaking incorporated in the
application of the petitioner, that if any wrong information /
misrepresentation / suppression of facts was found, she would be
ineligible for the aforesaid Retail Outlet. It was entirely the
misrepresentation of the respondents themselves that created a
situation, where the petitioner having pursued her application in a fair
and honest manner, is suffering and she is being deprived of her
rightful due.
30. The respondents did not even respond to the repeated
applications and misrepresentations made by the petitioner. She was
not even aware that a complaint was lodged by a third party on the
ground that the road on which subject Retail Outlet was established,
was categorized as a State highway. The respondents did not even
send reply to the legal notice issued on behalf of the petitioner and in
the affidavit in reply filed in the present petition, the respondents, for
15 WP / 888 / 2023
the first time, came up with the ostensible reason for proceeding
against the petitioner.
31. We find the conduct of the respondents to be highly
arbitrary, for which the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.
32. In similar situation, this Court held in favour of the victim of
such arbitrary conduct of oil companies. In the case of Suvarna
Shrikrishna Deore Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And
Ors. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court even referred to Article
15(3) of the Constitution of India which enables the State, to make
special provision for woman and observed that instead of taking a
decision that would advance the object of such a provision, the
respondent - oil company, had acted in an arbitrary manner, resulting in
the woman applicant being victimized. It was found that the
respondent - oil company, had acted in an illegal, arbitrary and
irrational manner, justifying interference in writ jurisdiction.
33. This Court, in similar circumstances concerning a woman
entrepreneur, in the case of Manisha Atul Borse Vs. Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And another (supra), also set aside the
action of the respondents and granted relief to the petitioner. In the
case of Yogesh Waman Gaikwad Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
this Court allowed the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
16 WP / 888 / 2023
34. We find that the respondents, cannot be permitted to rely
upon the order passed in case of Laxman s/o Gorakh Waghmare vs.
The Union of India (supra), for the reason that the law pertaining to
such arbitrary and irrational conduct of the respondents, particularly, in
a case where the applicant is a woman entrepreneur, was not referred
to and discussed while dismissing the writ petition.
35. The said case is also distinguishable on facts, as in the
present case, the establishment of the Retail Outlet allotted to the
petitioner in terms of the LOI, had reached the stage of completion
where even the tank was partially installed and only commissioning
and operationalization was to be done. The Officers of the
respondents had physically visited the land offered by the petitioner,
found it to be suitable and thereupon, the petitioner established the
physical infrastructure after obtaining necessary No-Objection
Certificates from all the departments. Even the District Magistrate of
Jalgaon issued necessary certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum
Rules. Having reached the final stage of establishment and
operationalization of the Retail Outlet, the respondents cannot be
permitted to turn around and arbitrarily refuse the logical and
consequential relief to the petitioner.
17 WP / 888 / 2023
36. The very fact that a Retail Outlet was proposed and
advertised at the subject location, shows that such a Retail Outlet is
indeed required at such a place. In fact, it was not seriously disputed
on behalf of the respondents that such a Retail Outlet at the said
location was found to be necessary and, hence, it was advertised.
37. But, the said Outlet being located on a State highway,
cannot be denied and, therefore, we find that the petitioner may not be
eligible for the facility of lower amounts charged for Rural Retail Outlet.
38. A proper appreciation of the Clauses of the brochure,
would show that charges for a Regular Retail Outlet are more than the
charges for Rural Retail Outlet. Since the petitioner herself has come
forward and stated that she would be ready to pay the difference in the
charges, we are inclined to allow this writ petition.
39. A woman entrepreneur has been made to run from pillar to
post after the LOI was issued and she had almost fully established the
Retail Outlet. In such circumstances, the petitioner deserves relief.
40. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents had taken
specific instructions, as to the difference in the charges and the further
amount that the petitioner would have to pay. It was stated that the
difference in amount would come to a further amount of security
18 WP / 888 / 2023
deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- + amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards difference
in non-refundable fees + amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the application
fee. Thus, the petitioner will have to deposit a further amount of
Rs.11,02,000/- in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
41. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
42. The impugned letter dated 25.01.2023, is quashed and set
aside.
43. The said LOI stands revived, allotting the said Retail Outlet
at Kaijgaon to Tarwade Kh on Both Sides, Dist. Jalgaon, in favour of
the petitioner, subject to the petitioner depositing the aforesaid
difference amount of Rs.11,02,000/- with the respondents.
44. The petitioner shall deposit the said amount within six (6)
weeks from the date of this order.
45. Upon the petitioner depositing the said amount, the
respondents shall take all further and necessary action for establishing
the said Retail Outlet in favour of the petitioner and ensuring the same
is operationalized at the earliest.
46. Writ petition is disposed of in above terms.
19 WP / 888 / 2023
47. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
48. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[ Y.G. KHOBRAGADE ] [ MANISH PITALE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
