Patna High Court
Anju Singh vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through ... on 17 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6282 of 2018
======================================================
Anju Singh Wife of Sri Amrendra Kumar, Resident of Village-Chikani, P.O.-
Jokiyari, Police Station-Raxaul, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director, G-9, Ali
Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East) P.S. Bandra, Mumbai
2. The Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited., G-9, Ali Yavar
Jung Marg, Bandra East, P.S. Bandra, Mumbai
3. The Chief General Manager RS, Bihar State Office, Indian Oil Corporation
LImited, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk,
P.S. Kotwali, Patna
4. The Senior Divisional Retails Sales Manager, Muzaffarpur Divisional Sales
Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Krishna Complex, Akharaghat
Road, Muzaffarpur
5. Vilasj Kumar Son of Sri Hari Chandra Singh, Resident of Village-Jetiahi,
P.O. Jokiyari, P.S. Raxaul, District East Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 17-10-2025
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following reliefs:
"i. To issue a writ in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the
order dated 23/01/18 as contained in
Annexure-5 to this application passed
by the respondent no.3 whereby and
where under the complaint filed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
2/9
petitioner was rejected and the
complaint fee remitted by the petitioner
was forfeited.
ii. To issue a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to
cancel the allocation of Kishan Sewa
Kendra i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Retail
Outlet dealership having location
no.644/1 situated between KM stone 5
(Sikta 15 KM) and Chanuli Pul Saiphan
towards Sikta in the district of East
Champaran made in favour of private
respondent no.5 on the ground that the
allocation made in favour of private
respondent is illegal and de hors the
provisions and guidelines.
iii. To issue a writ in the
nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities to make
allocation of Kisan Sewa Kendra i.e.
Indian Oil Corporation Retail Outlet
having location no.644/1 situated
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
3/9
between KM stone 5 (Sikta 15 KM) and
Chanuli Pul Saiphan towards Sikta in the
district of East Champaran in favour of
the petitioner.
iv. To any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is found
to be entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts as culled out from
the Writ petition are that the petitioner applied for
the Kisan Sewa Kendra (Retail Outlet dealership)
for location No. 644/1 in in the district of East
Champaran, as advertised by Indian Oil
Corporation Limited ((hereinafter called as the
IOCL) on 22/10/2014. After scrutiny of applications,
a draw of lots was conducted on 23/09/2016 at the
Divisional Office in Muzaffarpur for selection of
successful applicant. The petitioner and
respondent No. 5 were the only candidates. The
Block Development Officer, Minapur, was the chief
guest and was asked to pick a slip but it was
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
4/9
neither announced nor showed to the applicants.
Instead, the slip was handed to the Divisional
Retail Sales Manager, who announced respondent
No. 5, as the winner without displaying the slip
publicly. The petitioner immediately raised
objection alleging irregularities.
3. Further the case of the petitioner is
that the petitioner submitted a complaint dated
27/09/2016
, along with a demand draft of Rs.
1000, pointing out the irregularities committed
during the draw. Despite repeated requests and
submissions including references to videographic
evidence of the draw, the petitioner was never
informed about any inquiry. It is submitted that
eventually, the IOCL conducted an investigation
without the petitioner's knowledge and on
23/01/2018, informed the petitioner that the
allegations were unsubstantiated and
recommended the corporation to proceed with
selection of respondent No. 5, forfeiting the
petitioner's complaint fee. The petitioner
challenged the fairness of this process, highlighting
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
that the video recording of the draw was withheld
and the investigation was conducted behind her
back, suggesting mala fide intent by the
respondents. The petitioner again submitted a
representation dated 06/02/2018 raising objection
with regard to the manner of inquiry and stated
that neither she was informed about the inquiry
nor she was given an opportunity to participate.
The petitioner, therefore, prays for a fresh,
transparent draw and quashing of the impugned
selection.
4. A counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondent Indian Oil Corporation
Limited. The Learned counsel for the respondents
IOCL contended that the draw was conducted in
accordance with the corporation's established
guidelines. The petitioner and respondent no. 5
were the only eligible candiates for the said
location. The video recordings that captured the
proceedings from different angles were available
and was thoroughly examined by the Investigating
Officer (IO). The IO's report concluded that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
allegations were unsubstantiated, and the
complaint was disposed of as per policy. The slip
that was drawn by the invited guest, the name was
announced, and though not always clearly visible
on camera, the video showed the slip being
momentarily displayed. The respondents denied
any mala fide or irregularity and asserted that the
petitioner's grievance was without merit and
should be dismissed.
5. A supplimentary affidavit was also
filed on behalf of the petitioner wherein, the
petitioner challenged the authenticity of the video
recordings submitted by the respondent IOCL. The
petitioner contended that the video was improperly
recorded and several critical moments were out of
camera's view. The petitioner refuted the
respondents' claim that she never requested for a
copy of the video.
6. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that the investigation was
conducted, without affording any opportunity to
the petitioner or to present any evidence, which
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
violates the principles of natural justice. It is
further submitted that the entire process was
manipulated to favor respondent no. 5.
7. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as the Learned counsel for the
respondent IOCL. However, the private respondent,
i.e., respondent No. 5, has chosen not to appear
despite issuing notices and also providing
information by the the Learned counsel for IOCL.
8. Upon careful examination of the
pleadings, video evidence, and submissions, the
Court finds that the petitioner was not given any
opportunity to participate or be heard during the
inquiry conducted by the respondents. The video
recordings, though made from two angles, have
significant gaps, with crucial portions missing such
as the actual display of the drawn slip either
unclear or missing. It further appears that the
name on the slip was not announced by the invited
guest and further was not shown clearly to the
public or the petitioner at the time of the draw. The
records reveals that the respondents failed to
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
provide the petitioner with a copy of the video
recording or the investigation report, thereby
denying her the chance to effectively challenge the
findings. The Court further finds that the procedure
adopted lacks the necessary transparency and
fairness required in matters affecting livelihood.
Given the serious allegations of irregularity and the
procedural deficiencies, the petitioner's grievance
warrants further scrutiny.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 23/01/2018
(Annexure-5) is hereby quashed. The respondents
are directed to conduct a fresh draw of lots for
allocation of the Kishan Sewa Kendra dealership at
location no. 644/1 in East Champaran in a fair
manner, ensuring the presence of the petitioner
and proper video recording. The petitioner shall be
afforded full opportunity to participate in the
proceedings and access all relevant documents
and evidence. The allocation made in favor of
respondent no. 5 shall stand suspended pending
the fresh draw.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6282 of 2018 dt.17-10-2025
10. With the above observations and
directions, the writ petition is allowed.
11. Interlocutory Application, if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.10.2025
Transmission Date
