Patna High Court
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited vs Kumari Nikita Singh on 29 July, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1039 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1241 of 2021
======================================================
Deepak Kumar Singh son of Ramchandra Singh, Pachrukhi Tola, Khoyer, P.S.
Babubarki, District - Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 12/E and F, Maker Towers, Cuffe
Parade, Post Box No. 19949, Mumbai-400005
2. Head of Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Retail
Muzaffarpur POL Depot, Near Narayanpur Anant Railway Station,
Muzaffarpur
3. Regional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Retail
Muzaffarpur POL Depot, Near Narayanpur Anant Railway Station,
Muzaffarpur
4. Area Sales Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Retail
Muzaffarpur POL Depot, Near Narayanpur Anant Railway Station,
Muzaffarpur
5. The Chief Divisional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Exhibition Road, Patna, Bihar- 800001
6. Kumari Nikita Singh wife of Ratneshwar Kumar resident of Village and P.O.
Teghara, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1191 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1241 of 2021
======================================================
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Territory Manager (Retail),
Muzaffarpur POL Depot, Village- Sherpur, NH- 28, Near Narayanpur Anant
Railway Station, P.O.- MIC Bela, District- Muzaffarpur- 842005.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. Kumari Nikita Singh Wife of Ratneshwar Kumar Resident of Village and
P.O.-Teghara, P.S.-Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.
2. Deepak Kumar Singh, Son of Ramchandra Singh Resident of Ward No.- 13,
Village- Khoir, P.S.- Pachrukhi, P.O.- Ramnipatti, District- Madhubani, Pin-
847224.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1039 of 2024)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
2/24
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P. N. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rudrank Shivam Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1191 of 2024)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate
Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Om Prakash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 29-07-2025
L.P.A. No.1191 of 2024
The present appeals arise out of oral judgment
dated 29.07.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in
CWJC No.1241 of 2021 by which the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition filed by respondent Kumari Nikita
Singh (Respondent No.1 in LPA No.1191 of 2024) and thereby
the learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 03.12.2019
passed by the appellant Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as 'the BPCL')) and direction has been
given to process the application of the original petitioner.
2. As the order impugned in both the appeals is
common, learned Advocates appearing for the parties jointly
requested that both these appeals be heard together and be
disposed of by common order.
Factual Matrix
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
3/24
3. Factual matrix of the present case is as under:-
3.1. One Kumari Nikita Singh (original petitioner)
filed the captioned writ petition being CWJC No.1241 of 2021
in which the petitioner prayed for quashing and setting aside
the letter/order dated 03.12.2019, passed by Territorial
Manager Retail, Muzaffarpur whereby the candidature of the
petitioner was cancelled. The petitioner also prayed that this
Court may declare and hold that the land/plot offered by the
petitioner for Retail Outlet dealership within 2 km. from Barail
Chowk towards Donwari Hatt on Madhubani Babubarhi
Khutona Path, District Madhubani under open category
through application form submitted by the petitioner is not
offered by another applicant for the same location and the said
land exclusively has been offered by the petitioner for the
location.
3.2. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ
petition that the BPCL came out with an advertisement dated
25.11.2018
under open category inviting application for award
of Retail Outlet dealership within 2 km. from Barail Chowk
towards Donwari Hatt on Madhubani Babubarhi Khutona Path,
District Madhubani with certain conditions and eligibility
criteria. It is stated that the petitioner being interested,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
submitted her application under open category for allotment of
the Retail Outlet dealership of petrol pump. The said
application was submitted on 23.12.2018. It is the case of the
petitioner that all the necessary details, as required in terms of
the advertisement published, have been furnished by the
petitioner. The petitioner thereafter downloaded the entire
Brochure on "guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and
rural retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process".
3.3. It is further stated that draw of lots for
dealership in question was conducted on 26.07.2019 in which
the petitioner was declared as a selected candidate through
draw of lots for Retail Outlet dealership. After the petitioner
was declared as a successful candidate in the draw of lots,
direction was given to the petitioner through letter dated
29.07.2019 to remit Rs.40,000/- towards initial security deposit
along with set of documents within the stipulated time.
Necessary formalities were also completed thereafter.
3.4. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter on
26.09.2019, the field verification of credentials was fixed. It is
further the case of the petitioner that on the very same day, i.e.,
26.09.2019, other candidate, namely, Manisha Kumari, who
had also applied for award of dealership against the same
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
location, has withdrawn her candidature due to the reason that
her sister-in-law has been selected in draw of lots.
3.5. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that
letter dated 03.12.2019 was received by the petitioner whereby
she was informed that her candidature for award of RO
dealership was cancelled for the reason that the plot offered by
the petitioner was also offered by another applicant for the
same location.
3.6. The petitioner, therefore, filed the captioned
writ petition.
3.7. The learned Single Judge by the impugned
judgment dated 29.07.2024 allowed the writ petition and
thereby directed the BPCL to process the application of the
petitioner and grant her the letter of intent, if she is otherwise
eligible. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that appellant of
LPA No.1039 of 2024 was original respondent no.6 before the
learned Single Judge. As per the case of the original
respondents/appellants, after the candidature of the petitioner
has been cancelled, the RO dealership was granted in favour of
respondent no.6/appellant of LPA No.1039 of 2024. Therefore,
the original respondent no.6 has also filed separate appeal
being LPA No.1039 of 2024 challenging the very same
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Prasad for the appellant/petitioner
and Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Pranav Kumar for the respondents.
Submissions on behalf of the parties
5. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant BPCL referred the application form
of the original petitioner, copy of which is placed at page 19 of
the compilation. It is submitted that the petitioner provided
details of the land bearing Khata No.159, 79 Khesra No. 1982
and 1984 for allotment of RO dealership. Learned Senior
Advocate referred Clause 15(m) of the undertaking given by
the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel also referred the
declaration given by the appellant/petitioner. At this stage,
learned senior counsel would also refer the document produced
at Annexure-8A of the compilation, i.e., application form
submitted by one Manisha Kumari, sister-in-law of the
petitioner. It is submitted that the said Manisha Kumari has
also offered the same plot of land having Khesra No.1985,
1986, 1981, 1982 and 1984. Thus, the other applicant has also
offered the same land bearing Khesra No.1982 and 1984,
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
which is not permissible as per Clause 15m of the undertaking
given by the petitioner. Thus, same plot of land was offered by
the petitioner as well as her sister-in-law, i.e., Manisha Kumari.
It is submitted that, as per Clause 15(m), the candidature for
RO dealership can be rejected/dealership can be terminated.
6. Learned Senior Advocate would further contend
that during the field verification carried out on 26.09.2019, the
aforesaid aspect was noticed by the concerned officer of the
BPCL and, therefore, by order dated 03.12.2019, the
candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. It is further
submitted that thereafter on 23.11.2020, letter of intent has
been issued in favour of the original Respondent No.6 and
thereafter the petitioner filed the petition on 28.11.2020.
Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that the petitioner
has filed the present petition after a period of one year from the
date of rejection of her candidature.
7. Mr. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate would
further submit that the contention taken by the petitioner
before the learned Single Judge with regard to providing
opportunity of being heard and/or issuance of notice is
misconceived. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
learned Single Judge has committed a grave error by observing
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
that the authority did not verify as to whether the land offered
by the petitioner and Manisha Kumari is one and the same and
passed the order without issuing any show cause notice.
Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
8. Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the BPCL has placed reliance upon the
decision rendered by a Division Bench of Allahabad High
Court in the case of Kiran Rai vs Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (Writ - C No. - 15100 of 2024) and, more
particularly, referred paragraph Nos. 13 to 17 of the said order.
9. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the appellant in LPA No.1039 of 2024 has also
adopted the submissions canvassed by learned Senior
Advocate, Mr. P.K. Shahi. However, Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned
Senior Advocate further submits that letter of intent was issued
by the BPCL in favour of the appellant/original Respondent
No.6 on 23.11.2020 and thereafter the said appellant has made
huge investment in the land offered by him. It has been pointed
out from the counter affidavit filed by the said appellant
(original Respondent No.6 before the learned Single Judge) in
paragraph-15 that the same plot of land was also offered by
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
another person, i.e., husband of Manisha Kumari to BPCL for
allotment of RO dealership. The said aspect has not been
specifically denied by the petitioner by filing rejoinder.
Learned Senior Advocate, therefore, urged that the same plot
of land has been offered by three different persons of the
family for allotment of RO dealership, which is not
permissible as per the policy of BPCL. Learned Senior
Counsel, therefore, urged that BPCL has not committed any
illegality while cancelling the allotment made in favour of the
petitioner and thereafter by issuing LOI in favour of the said
appellant after a period of one year. Learned Senior Counsel,
therefore, urged that the learned Single Judge has committed
error while allowing the petition and permiting the said
appellant to file a civil suit for compensation. Learned Senior
Counsel, therefore, urged that the impugned judgment passed
by the learned Single Judge be set aside.
10. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate,
Mr. Y.V. Giri has vehemently opposed both these appeals. It is
mainly contended that the learned Single Judge has not
committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and
the view taken by the learned Single Judge is one of the
possible views and, therefore, the said view may not be
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
interfered with in the present Letters Patent Appeals. Mr. Giri,
learned Senior Advocate would thereafter contend that the
original petitioner as well as Manisha Kumari, her sister-in-
law, have offered two separate parcels of land from same plots,
despite which, the BPCL has cancelled the allotment issued in
favour of the petitioner without issuance of the show-cause
notice and thereby the BPCL has violated the principles of
natural justice and the said decision can be termed as
'arbitrary'. It is contended that had the opportunity of being
heard been given to the petitioner, the petitioner could have
submitted reply/given explanation with regard to two different
parcels of land from the same plot of land. Learned Senior
Advocate has referred the document produced at page 73 of
the compilation in support of his submissions that both the
persons have offered two different parcels of land.
11. Mr. Giri, the learned Senior Advocate has
placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union
of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 664. Mr. Giri, learned
Senior Counsel has also referred the order passed by this Court
while issuing notice in the petition. It is submitted that the
Division Bench has specifically observed that pursuant to the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
issuance of LOI, any action taken during pendency of the writ
petition shall be subject to outcome of the petition. Therefore,
it is not open for the private respondent, i.e., the appellant of
LPA No.1039 of 2024, to contend that he has made huge
investment after the LOI has been issued in his favour. Learned
Senior Counsel, therefore, urged that both these appeals be
dismissed.
Discussion
12. Having heard learned Senior Advocates
appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials
placed on record, it would emerge that the BPCL came out
with an advertisement dated 25.11.2018 under open category
inviting application for award of Retail Outlet dealership in
district Madhubani for the area referred in the said
advertisement. The said advertisement was containing certain
conditions and eligibility criteria. The petitioner submitted her
application on 23.12.2018 in which the petitioner offered plot
of land bearing Khesra No.1982, 1984 for allotment of Retail
Outlet dealership for the location in question. It further
transpires that the petitioner was declared as a selected
candidate through draw of lots and, therefore, direction was
given to the petitioner through letter dated 29.07.2019 to remit
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
Rs.40,000/- towards initial security deposit along with set of
documents within the stipulated time.
13. It further transpires that on 26.09.2019, field
verification of credentials was fixed and during the field
verification, it is revealed that the plots offered by the
petitioner are also offered by another applicant for the same
location and, therefore, as per the affidavit given by the
petitioner, as per Appendix XA and also as per the undertaking
of the petitioner mentioned in the application, it was decided to
cancel the candidature of the petitioner. Accordingly, by
communication/order dated 03.12.2019, the said aspect was
informed to the petitioner and the candidature of the petitioner
was cancelled.
14. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that one
Manisha Kumari, sister-in-law of the petitioner, has also
offered the same plots of land bearing Khesra No.1981, 1982,
1984, 1985 and 1986. Thus, from the record, it transpires that
other applicant has also offered same plots of land bearing
Khesra No.1982 and 1984 for allotment of RO dealership in
question. From the averments made by the petitioner in the
petition itself, it is revealed that one Manisha Kumari, sister-
in-law of the petitioner, has also applied for award of Retail
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
Outlet dealership against the same location. However, on
26.09.2019 itself, she has withdrawn her candidature due to the
reason that her sister-in-law has been selected in draw of lots.
In paragraph-11 of the memo of petition, the petitioner has
stated as under:
"That it is relevant to mention here
that through letter dated 26.09.2019 the other
candidate namely Manisha Kumari who has also
applied for award of dealership against the same
location bearing application no.15455618069648
has withdrawn her candidature due to the reason
the sister in law has been selected in draw of lots
and therefore the other candidature namely
Manisha Kumari requested for cancellation of her
candidature. Further assured that in future also
she will not raise any claim with regard to the
candidature."
15. It is pertinent to note at this stage that though
the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated
03.12.2019, the captioned petition was filed in November,
2020, i.e., after a period of approximately one year. In the
meantime, on 23.11.2020, letter of intent was issued in favour
of the appellant of LPA No.1039 of 2024.
16. At this stage, we would like to refer Clause
15(m) of undertaking given by the applicant as well as the
declaration given by the petitioner.
16.1. Clause 15(m) of undertaking given by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
applicant reads as under:
"15m. I am also aware that the same
land cannot be offered by more than one applicant
for a particular RO location against the same
advertisement. In case it is found that the same
piece of land as offered by me has been offered by
other applicant(s) for this location then my
candidature for RO dealership will be
rejected/Dealership terminated, if already
appointed."
16.2. Declaration given by the petitioner reads as
under:
"I, KUMARI NIKITA SINGH wife of
Shri RATNESHWAR KUMAR hereby confirm that
the information given above is true and correct.
Any wrong information/ misrepresentation/
suppression of facts will make me ineligible for
this RO dealership. That if any
information/declaration given by me in my
application or in any document submitted by me in
support of application for the award of the RO
dealership shall be found to be untrue or incorrect
or false, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd
would be within its rights to withdraw the letter of
intent/terminate the dealership (if already
appointed) and that I would have no claim,
whatsoever, against the Corporation for such
withdrawal/termination."
17. Thus, from Clause 15(m) of the undertaking
given by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner was
not aware that the same land cannot be offered by more
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
applicants for a particular RO location against the same
advertisement. Further, in case it is found that the same piece
of land, as offered by the petitioner, has been offered by other
applicant for the said location, then the candidature for RO
dealership will be rejected/dealership terminated, if already
appointed. Further, by declaration, the petitioner has confirmed
that the information given by her in the application form is true
and correct. Further, any wrong/misrepresentation/suppression
of facts will make the petitioner ineligible for the said RO
dealership. Further, the BPCL would be within its right to
withdraw the letter of intent/terminate the dealership and the
petitioner would have no claim, whatsoever, against the BPCL
for such withdrawal/termination.
18. We are of the view that when the petitioner as
well as another candidate, namely, Manisha Kumari, sister-in-
law of the petitioner, both have offered same plots of land
bearing Khesra No.1982 and 1984, BPCL was justified in
cancelling the candidature of the petitioner.
19. So far as the contention taken by Mr. Y.V. Giri,
learned Senior Advocate appearing for the original petitioner is
concerned, it has been argued that plots of land offered by the
petitioner as well as Manisha Kumari are different and in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
support of the same he has referred the document produced at
page 73 of the compilation, however, we are of the view that
the aforesaid document can be termed as nothing but an after
thought. Even otherwise, from the application forms submitted
by the petitioner as well as one Manisha Kumari, copy of
which have been placed at page 20 and 33 of the compilation
respectively, it can be said that the petitioner as well as another
applicant have offered the same plots of land. Now, it is the
contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the original
petitioner that the BPCL did not give opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner before cancelling the candidature and
thereby violated the principles of natural justice. Had the
opportunity of hearing been given to the petitioner, the
petitioner could have pointed out the relevant aspect. We are of
the view that the aforesaid contention is also misconceived. As
per the application forms submitted by the petitioner as well as
her sister-in-law, Manisha Kumari, when the same plots of
land have been offered for RO dealership, the BPCL was
justified in cancelling the candidature as per terms 15(m) and
declaration given by the petitioner. In the facts of the present
case, it cannot be said that the original respondent BPCL has
violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged. At this
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
stage, it is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner herself
has stated in paragraph-11 of the memo of petition that on the
date of field verification, i.e., on 26.09.2019, her sister-in-law,
Manisha Kumari had withdrawn her candidature as the
petitioner has been selected in draw of lots. Thus, from the
aforesaid conduct of the sister-in-law of the petitioner, i.e.,
Manisha Kumari, it can be said that the petitioner as well as
Manisha Kumari were aware about the aspect of offering same
plots of land for RO dealership, otherwise, there was no
reason for Manisha Kumari to withdraw her candidature.
20. In similar type of case, i.e., in the case of Kiran
Rai (supra), the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has
observed in paragraph nos.13 to 17 as under:-
"13. Insofar as the present facts are
concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that
the plot no. 965 (entire) was in the exclusive
ownership of the Mahendra Singh. The petitioner
admits that there were co-sharers in that plot
along with Mahendra Singh. At the same time, the
Brochure required lease deed to be executed by all
co-sharers of the plot being offered for allotment.
Also, there can be no dispute to the fact that the
above eligibility condition was to be met on the
date of application i.e. 25.9.2023. Therefore, the
rights of Mahendra Singh in plot no. 965, are to be
seen on the date of filing of the application dated
25.9.2023, only. Subsequent developments or
change of circumstances would have no bearing
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
on the rights being claimed by the petitioner. In
any case, they may not alter the eligibility
requirement that has been enforced under the
Brochure.
14. Tested on that principle, while the
petitioner claims existence of a compromise
reached prior to the eligibility date 25.9.2023 as
acknowledged in the order dated 11.2.2023 passed
by Assistant Consolidation Officer, at the same
time, it is the own case of the petitioner that the
said order was erroneous to the extent it failed to
fully recognize the compromise in entirety and it
failed to recognize the partition by metes and
bounds that had taken place between the parties to
that dispute. Therefore, the petitioner appealed
against that order before Settlement Officer,
Consolidation and was successful in that appeal to
the extent the Settlement Officer, Consolidation
vide his order dated 20.12.2023 clearly provided
for preparation of the 'Kurra' in terms of
settlement/compromise reached between the
parties, both as to the shares as also to the exact
allocation of the apportioned shares.
15. Though the said order dated
20.12.2023 may relate back inter parties (to the
dispute before the Consolidation authorities), and
no other right may be claimed by the co-sharers,
yet, IOCL was a stranger to that dispute. It may
not have acted upon it. It could only recognize the
rights of the parties as were seen to exist i.e. were
adjudicated on the date of the application i.e.
25.9.2023. What transpired thereafter may not
alter the status of eligibility conditions. The exact
allocation of the apportioned shares not enforced
on that date - by metes and bounds, no benefit
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
may be drawn against the I.O.C.L., by the
subsequent events arising from the appeal filed by
Mahendra Singh being allowed. To that extent,
Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Brochure is specific and
consequence of its non-compliance is also
unequivocally clear. It was for the petitioner to act
accordingly, and offer non-litigious land, as
stipulated, in the Brochure.
16. To the extent the order of the
Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated
20.12.2023 did not exist on the date of eligibility
claimed and there was no 'Kurra' prepared, the
partition by metes and bounds was not visible to
I.O.C.L. Merely because there may not survive any
dispute between Mahendra Singh and his co-
sharers on the strength of some private partition
held, in absence of public recognition granted in
law, either through the order of the Settlement
Officer, Consolidation, and/or through appropriate
revenue entries, the IOCL may have remained
within its rights not to recognize and/or act on
such developments as may have involved
alteration of its own position viz-a-viz the
proposed Retail Outlet.
17. In matters of contract, the Writ
Court may leave it open to the contracting parties
to act in the manner they may deem fit. Insofar as
the action of the IOCL is not seen to be plainly
arbitrary and/or unreasoned, we are not inclined
to offer any interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to reverse the commercial
decision of the IOCL - to not enter into the
contract with the petitioner."
21. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
behalf of the original petitioner has placed reliance upon the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Swadeshi Cotton Mills (supra). Paragraph-106 of the said
judgment reads as under:
"106. The principles of natural
justice have taken deep root in the judicial
conscience of our people, nurtured by Dr. Bina
Pani, Kraipak, Mohinder Singh Gill, Maneka
Gandhi. They are now considered so fundamental
as to be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty'
and, therefore, implicit in every decision-making
function, call it judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative. Where authority functions under a
statute and the statute provides for the observance
of the principles of natural justice in a particular
manner, natural justice will have to be observed in
that manner and in no other. No wider right than
that provided by statute can be claimed nor can
the right be narrowed. Where the statute is silent
about the observance of the principles of natural
justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply
compliance with the principles of natural justice.
The implication of natural justice being
presumptive it may be excluded by express words
of statute or by necessary intendment. Where the
conflict is between the public interest and the
private interest, the presumption must necessarily
be weak and may, therefore, be readily displaced.
The presumption is also weak where what are
involved are mere property rights. In cases of
urgency, particularly where the public interest is
involved, pre-emptive action may be a strategic
necessity. There may then be no question of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
observing natural justice. Even in cases of pre-
emptive action, if the statute so provides or if the
courts so deem fit in appropriate cases, a
postponed hearing may be substituted for natural
justice. Where natural justice is implied, the extent
of the implication and the nature of the hearing
must vary with the statute, the subject and the
situation. Seeming judicial ambivalence on the
question of the applicability of the principles of
natural justice is generally traceable to the
readiness of judges to apply the principles of
natural justice where no question of the public
interest is involved, particularly where rights and
interests other than property rights and vested
interests are involved and the reluctance of judges
to apply the principles of natural justice where
there is suspicion of public mischief and only
property rights and vested interests are involved."
21.1. We are of the view that the aforesaid decision
would not render any assistance to the original petitioner in the
facts and circumstances of the present case, as discussed
hereinabove.
22. We have gone through the reasoning recorded
by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition
filed by the petitioner. In paragraph-8 of the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it has been
observed by the learned Single Judge that it is an admitted fact
that the sister-in-law of the petitioner has also applied for the
very same location offering an area of 1225 sq. mtr. in the very
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
same khata number. Despite the aforesaid observation, the
learned Single Judge has further observed that the said Khata
Number is more than 2500 sq. mtrs. and, therefore, it was open
for the petitioner as well as Manisha Kumari to offer the piece
of land from the same plot. However, we are of the view that
there is nothing on record before the BPCL with regard to the
aforesaid. Further, the learned Single Judge, in paragraph-9,
has also observed that on the date of rejection of candidature of
the petitioner, the application of Manisha Kumari was not
before the authority as she had already withdrawn the same
and, therefore, the contentions of the respondents that the land
offered by the petitioner is one and the same is also without
any legal basis and factually wrong. We are of the view that the
learned Single Judge has committed an error by relying upon
the aforesaid aspect of withdrawal of the application by
Manisha Kumari. At this stage, we may recall that as per
Clause 15(m) of the application form itself, it is revealed that
on the date of application, the same plot of land cannot be
offered by other applicant and, if it is so, the candidature for
RO dealership is required to be terminated and declaration was
also given by the petitioner that she has provided the correct
information and if the information given by the petitioner is
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
found to be wrong, the dealership is required to be terminated
and then she would have no claim against the BPCL for such
withdrawal/termination. Thus, on the date of submitting
application, same plots of land were offered by the two
applicants and, therefore, simply because one of the applicants
has withdrawn her candidature at a later stage, i.e., on the date
of field verification, it cannot be said that Clause 15(m) as well
as declaration would not be applicable.
Findings
23. Looking to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that, in
view of Clause 15(m) as well as declaration, the BPCL was
justified in passing the impugned order dated 03.12.2019
cancelling the candidature of the petitioner. Hence, the learned
Single Judge has committed an error by allowing the writ
petition filed by the petitioner.
24. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated
29.07.2024, passed in CWJC No.1241 of 2021 is set aside.
L.P.A. No.1191 of 2024 is allowed.
25. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1039 of 2024 dt.29-07-2025
In view of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No.1191
of 2024, the present appeal stands disposed of.
2. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 01.08.2025
Transmission Date N/A
