Gujarat High Court
Ranchhodbhai Vashrambhai Bharvad vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 23 June, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2623 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
RANCHHODBHAI VASHRAMBHAI BHARVAD
Versus
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM Corporation LIMITED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HIREN P VYAS(2269) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH(773) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VINOD M GAMARA(5910) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR.MANAN BHATT(6535) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 23/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
RULE. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt appearing for the respondent
no.1, learned Advocate Mr.Shah for respondent no.2 and learned
Advocate Mr.Gamara, for respondent no.3 waive service of notice of rule.
With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing
the action of the respondent no.1 - HPCL (for short "the Corporation")
and it is prayed that selection of respondent No.2 for allotment of Retail
Outlet Dealership in open category on Piplaj By pass Road, starting and
ending on Ahmedabad Dholka Highway (Piplaj Pirana Road), finalized
by Respondent No.1-Corporation may be quashed and set aside.
BRIEF FACTS :
3. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent No.1-
Corporation on 28-06-2023 in Gujarat Samachar, Ahmedabad Edition,
the petitioner on 18-07-2023, Vide Application No. HPCL
6894177988439 applied for the allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership in
Open Category for the location named "On Pilpaj By pass Road, Starting
and Ending on Ahmedabad - Dholka Highway (Piplaj - Pirana Road).
4. For the purpose of selection of dealer for the concerned retail
outlet, the selection procedure is made through the draw of lots /bidding
process as per the guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and rural
retail outlets framed by the consortium of three Oil Companies, one of
them being respondent no.1-Corporation.
5. In response to the application made by the petitioner seeking
allotment of dealership of retail outlet, respondent No.1-Corporation sent
an email to the petitioner for attending draw of lots / bidding process to
be held on 15-12-2023 at IIM, Ahmedabad. On the day of draw of lots/
bidding process, it was noticed that there were two other applicants
seeking allotment of dealership of retail outlet in respect of the same
location bearing Application No.HPCL 6896023520326 preferred by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Respondent No. 2 and Application bearing No. HPCL 6891699023407
preferred by Respondent No. 3.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the draw held by
Respondent No.1-Corporation, it was orally informed that Respondent
No. 2 is selected in the draw of lots / bidding process for the Retail Outlet
Dealership, wherein the provisional allotment was given to the
Respondent No. 2 as per the draw system, which is absolutely in
contravention and violation of the terms and conditions, as stated in the
Brochure of Selection of Dealers For Regular & Rural Retail Outlets,
June 2023, issued by the consortium of Oil Companies including
Respondent No. 1 through the draw of lots / bidding process.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :
7. Learned Advocate Mr.Vyas appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner came to know that respondent nos.2 and 3 are the
father-in-law and daughter-in-law respectively and they have applied for
the Retail Outlet Dealership offering non-agricultural land being Block /
Survey No.9/2, Mouje Village Piplaj, Tal. Vatva, Dist: Ahmedabad and
immediately the petitioner agitated the same. It is submitted that the
petitioner has also filed necessary RTI application seeking details of the
documents in regards to respondents no.2 and 3 and the issue with regard
to supply of necessary information is still pending consideration before
the appropriate forum.
8. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner has
pointed out various clauses of the Brochure of Selection of Dealers issued
by the respondent no.1-Corporation. He has submitted that the retail
outlets the petitioner as well as respective private respondents
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
pertains to dealer owned sites ("DC" / "B" site) and each of the petitioner
as well as the respondent nos.2 and 3 are supposed to have the land in
Group-1.
9. He has referred to Clause - 4 (g), which pertains to the land owned
by the family members to be considered as belonging to the Group-1;
subject to producing the consent letters of such family members. He has
referred to the category of the family members which has been specified
in Clause 4(h). It is submitted that the respondent no.1-Corporation by
accepting the application of the respondent no.2, has violated the
Condition No.(c) below Note 1, which categorically provides that the
same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a
particular Retail Outlet location against an advertisement. He has
submitted that in the present case, the said piece of land, as mentioned
herein above, has been offered by the respondents no.2 and 3, which is in
clear contravention to the aforesaid condition.
10. Further, by pointing out the condition mentioned in the paragraph
about the land details having same survey numbers, etc., it is submitted
that in case the same land is offered by different applicants, the land
should be clearly de-marketed indicating the share of the applicants, who
applied for the RO location. In this regard, he has referred to the map of
demarcation produced by respondents no.2 and 3 (page 75) and submitted
that a bare perusal of the same would reveal that the respondents no.2 and
3 have inter se decided about demarcation of the land and no
documentary evidence has been produced to show that the land is
demarcated by the State authorities such as District Inspector of Land
Records (DILRs).
11. Learned Advocate Mr.Vyas has submitted that in case the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
procedure, which is adopted by respondent no.1-Corporation is accepted,
then the same would result into an arbitrary action, as also will give the
respondent no.1-Corporation the discretion to accept the application of
the various members who hold the same plot of land which would
eliminate the competition. It is submitted that in public interest, the
respondent no.1-Corporation ought to have first examined the plot of land
of each of the applicants and in case it is found that the parameters are
specified as per the guidelines, only then further procedure could have
been undertaken. Thus, it is urged that the writ petition may be allowed
and the action of the respondent no.1-Corporation in allotting the Retail
ownership to respondent no.2 may be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :
12. Opposing the above submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt
appearing for the respondent no.1-Corporation has submitted that the
action of respondent no.1 is in accordance with the policy. It is submitted
that respondent no.1-Corporation, after receipt of the various
applications, is required to follow the procedure as mentioned in the
brochure, more particularly, paragraph No.14 onwards. It is submitted
that when the applications were received, the draw of lots was undertaken
in the computer, in which the application of the petitioner was not
selected and the application of respondent no.2 was accepted and
thereafter as per the procedure prescribed in the Brochure and Policy of
the Corporation, the necessary procedure of document verification and
also the land evaluation was undertaken. It is submitted that only after the
field verification of the credentials (FPC) are examined by the
Corporation, Letter of Intent (LoI) is required to be issued to the
concerned applicant. It is submitted that the procedure in the present case
has reached upto the field verification of credentials and the Letter of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
Intent is yet not issued in favour of respondent no.2 in view of the
pendency of the writ petition.
13. He has contended that when the Officers of respondent no.1-
Corporation visited the site, they had found the demarcation satisfactory
and in line of the policy of the Corporation. It is submitted that the land
was clearly demarcated. It is thus urged that the present writ petition may
not be entertained, more particularly, in wake of the fact that the
petitioner has not challenged the process of procedure adopted by the
Corporation in dealing with the applications. It is submitted that no mala
fide has been alleged by the petitioner against respondent no.1.
14. Learned Advocate Mr.Shah appearing for respondent no.2 has
adopted the arguments canvassed by learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt for
respondent no.1. While placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Tata Motors Limited vs. Brihan Mumbai
Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (Best), AIR 2023 SC 2717 it
has been urged that the Court may not interfere with the commercial
matters and also in wake of the fact that the procedure, which has been
adopted by respondent no.1-Corporation allotting the RO location, may
not be interfered with.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
15. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who has not been
selected in the process of draw conducted through a computer software.
In the draw for allocation of the RO location, the respondent no.2 has
been selected. The petitioner has not challenged the process of draw, and
on the contrary, after participation and non selection, he has filed the
captioned writ petition challenging the selection of the respondent no.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
16. The relevant guidelines / paragraphs of the respondent no.1 -
Corporation, as pointed out by the learned advocates for the respective
parties, have been perused by us. The entire case of the petitioner and
private respondents hinges on Paragraph No.c below Note-1 (page 29),
which has been reproduced hereunder:
"c. The same piece of land cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a
particular RO location against an advertisement. In case more than one application
is received offering the same piece of land all such applications would be rejected
and allotment, if made, would be liable for cancellation. This aspect shall be verified
only upon receipt of written information by the OMC However, if plots having same
land details (Khasra/Gatta/Khatauni/Survey/Plot/Dag/Gut No. etc.) are offered by
different applicants, such cases will not be liable for rejection provided there is no
overlap of any kind and there is clear demarcation of land offered by them."
17. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents no.2 and 3 applied
for the same piece of land, which is prohibited in the aforementioned
clause. Respondents no.2 and 3 have applied for the dealership offered
by respondent no.1 being Block / Survey No.9/2, Mouje Village Piplaj,
Tal. Vatva, Dist: Ahmedabad. Respondents no.2 and 3 are related to each
other as respondent no.2 is daughter-in-law of respondent no.3. Village
Form No.7 mentions the details of the land of survey no.9/2 and there are
seven owners reflected in such survey numbers. After the petitioner and
respondents no.2 and 3 applied, the respondent no.1-Corporation, as per
the policy, undertook the necessary draw process, in which the petitioner
was not selected and respondent no.2 was selected. It is the case of the
petitioner that demarcation of the land, which has been shown by
respondent nos.2 and 3 in the land of survey no.9/2, could have been
followed by the documentary evidence, more particularly, in order of the
State authorities or revenue authorities such as DILR. It is submitted that
since the land is not clearly demarcated showing the respective
ownership, the respondent no.1-Corporation could not have allotted the
Retail Outlets to the respondent no.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
18. It is not in dispute that after the draw of lots of bidding, the
respondent no.1-Corporation undertook final process of applications,
provisionally selected the candidates i.e. respondent No.2 and as per the
guidelines, necessary documents were verified. The details of the
documents are incorporated (page 47) in paragraph No.1 which are six in
numbers. They are (01) notarized affidavit, (02) proof of age age, (03)
(04) proof of educational qualification, (05) Appendix-III, copy of land
documents in support of ownership and (06) sketch/site map of the
offered land with dimension. After such documents were verified,
respondent no.1 did the Land Evaluation of the concerned land and
verified whether the land falls within the advertised area, land dimensions
and meets requirement after leaving Right of Way (RoW), land meets
NHAI, land has no HT Line (above 11 crossing).
19. Thereafter, the field verification of credentials, as mentioned in
paragraph No.15 of the guidelines, has been undertaken and necessary
verification was done with regard to the correctness of the details given
by the candidates in the applications and the documents submitted. The
process in the present matter has reached to this stage and thereafter as
per paragraph No.16 of the policy, the Letter of Intent is required to be
issued to the provisional selected candidates i.e. respondent no.2.
20. In our considered opinion, the case of the respondent no.2 would
fall in the later part of paragraph-C (Note-1), which we may again
reiterate :
"......However, if plots having same land details
(Khasra/Gatta/Khatauni/Survey/Plot/Dag/Gut No. etc.) are offered by different
applicants, such cases will not be liable for rejection provided there is no overlap of
any kind and there is clear demarcation of land offered by them."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
21. Thus, in the present case, the respondents no.2 and 3 offered their
land, which is same land having land details of survey no.9/2. At this
stage, clause No.C permits the respondent no.1-Corporation to accept
their applications and the same cannot be rejected. However, the Proviso
is added to such conditions, wherein the Corporation has to verify that the
land which has been offered by the respective applicants having the same
survey number do not overlap in any kind and there is clear demarcation
of land offered by them.
22. It is the case of the petitioner that demarcation should have been
done by the revenue authorities or the State authorities and in absence of
such order, the Corporation ought not to have permitted the respondent
no.2 to participate; however, we cannot prevail upon the commercial
wisdom of the respondent no.1-Corporation. The demarcation of the land,
which has been offered by respondents no.2 and 3 in the form of map (at
page 75) has been accepted by the respondent no.1 and it is found to be
satisfactory to meet with their requirement. There is no clause provided
in the guidelines of the respondent no.1-Corporation, which mentions that
the demarcation of land has to be shown on the basis of the order of
revenue authority or any State authorities such as DILR. The officers of
the Respondent No.1-Corporation have done site visit, after verification
of all the documents and upon verification of the land found the
demarcation appropriate as there was clear demarcation done by
respondents no.2 and 3 of the land of the survey no.9/2. Thus, since the
Corporation in its discretion, has found that the condition No.C of Note 1
has been fulfilled, this Court, while exercising the power of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute
the discretion of the Corporation unless we find the same is palpably
mala fide or arbitrary. In absence of any enabling provisions explaining
the demarcation of the land through the orders of the State authorities, we
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2623/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
cannot supply casus omissus to the policy adopted by the respondent -
Corporation in its commercial wisdom.
23. The petitioner has neither assailed the process of draw nor the
guidelines/policy of the respondent-Corporation, and hence the
submissions made by him on the elimination of the competition cannot be
delved into by this Court.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged.
25. At this stage, learned advocate Mr.Vyas for the petitioner has
submitted that an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited before this
Court pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 15/02/2024 while
issuing Notice, may be ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
26. We find that the writ petition is not frivolous in any manner and the
legal issues have been raised. Thus, we direct the Registry to refund the
amount of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner after due verification.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
sompura / 32
