M/s Gobind Indane Gramin Vitrak vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12122 of 2023
======================================================
M/s Gobind Indane Gramin Vitrak a partnership firm, represented through its
Partner, Arun Kumar Sah, Male, aged about 52 years, Son of Babulal Sah,
Resident of Barharwa Urf Bishunpur Mohabbat, Police Station- Suppi,
District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman cum Managing
Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai.
2. The Executive Director and State Head, Bihar State Office, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Jai Prakash Lok Narayan Bhavan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow
Road, Patna- 800001.
3. General Manager, LPG, Bihar State Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jai
Prakash Lok Narayan Bhavan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-
800001.
4. Divisional LPG Head, Muzaffarpur Divisional Office, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. Krishna Complex, Akharaghat, Road, Muzaffarpur-
842001.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 20-04-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed for the following
relief(s):-
“(i) For a writ of certiorari to
quash the order dated 13.07.2023 as contained
in Ref. No. BSO/LPG/MIDO/Govind IGV
issued under the signature of respondent No. 2,
whereby the Distribution Agreement dated
13.01.2017 entered between the petitioner and
respondent corporation was terminated with
immediate effect and the petitioner was
directed to handover all the properties and

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
2/12
belonging of the respondent corporation
forthwith which order per se is arbitrary,
illegal and unsustainable.
(ii) For a writ of mandamus that
after setting aside the order of termination of
the Distributorship Agreement, the
distributorship of the petitioner's firm may be
restored forthwith and the consumer /customer
of the petitioner may be retagged and supply to
the distributorship may be directed to be
resumed forthwith.
(iii) For any other relief / reliefs to
which the petitioner is found entitled in the
facts and circumstances of the case. ”
3. The brief facts of this case are that pursuant to the
advertisement given by the Respondent-Corporation, the petitioner
has submitted his application along with the requisite documents
for allotment of LPG dealership. That as per the terms and
conditions of the allotment, the petitioner was required to show
land admeasuring 13.49 decimals. Thereafter, on physical
verification of the site by the Respondent authorities as well as the
revenue authorities, the subject land was found to be suitable as
per the requirements of the Oil Corporation. The petitioner was
selected as a LPG dealer and was issued the Letter of Intent (LOI).
Thereafter, an agreement was entered by the parties in the year
2017 . During the process of selection of the LPG dealer, a
complaint was made to the Corporation against the petitioner
stating that the area of the land offered by the petitioner was not as
per the requirements of the Corporation. After due enquiry, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
3/12
Corporation found that the site shown by the petitioner was
meeting the requirements and the said complaint was closed.
Thereafter, the petitioner has constructed a godown over the
subject property and been continuing as a LPG dealer from the
year 2017 onward. That subsequently based on the complaint
made at the behest of the local MLA, the authorities have issued
another Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2022 against the
petitioner calling for his explanation as to why action should not
be taken against him for showing less area of land than what was
required. The petitioner has given a suitable representation to the
said Show Cause Notice and stated that the land purchased by the
petitioner was 20 decimals and whereas the requirement of the
authority was only 13.49 decimal. However, the authority not been
satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner have
cancelled the dealership vide letter 09.09.2022. Aggrieved by the
said cancellation, the present CWJC came to the filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been functioning as an LPG Dealership without any
complaint from any consumer or any authority since the year
2017. That the petitioner has invested more than Rs. 50 lakhs in
establishing the dealership and also is the construction of the LPG
godown. Further, it is stated that as on date the LPG godown is

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
4/12
existing over the land admeasuring 20 decimals, whereas the
requirement of the authority is only 13.49 decimals. Learned
counsel has stated that initially the revenue administration as well
as the respondent-Corporation after due verification came to the
conclusion that the land offered by the petitioner and on which the
godown was constructed was meeting the requirements of the
Corporation and had closed the complaint made by a third party.
The present order of termination based on the complaint made by
the local MLA is per se illegal as the authority have passed the
order without taking the present status of the land and godown into
consideration. Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble
Court to allow the present writ petition and set aside the impugned
order of termination dated 13.07.2023. Learned counsel has relied
on the judgment rendered by a Hon’ble Single Judge in CWJC No.
7292 of 2020 dated 14.09.2020 .
5. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondent-Corporation has vehemently opposed the very
maintainability of the CWJC and the prayer sought for in the
present writ petition. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner
by suppression of material fact has obtained the R.O. dealership.
That as per the original sale-deed, the land purchased by the
petitioner was only 12 decimals. That the petitioner thereafter, got

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
5/12
executed another sale-deed for 8 decimals of land and this fact was
suppressed by the petitioner at the time of making the application.
That the authority on coming to know about the fraud played by
the petitioner was well within its rights to cancel the allotment
after following the due process. Further, it is submitted that the
petitioner has filed sale-deed bearing No. 1772 dated 26.07.2013
to the effect that he had purchased 20 decimals of land but as a
matter of fact, the land under the said sale-deed was only 12
decimals. That the petitioner in order to make up the for less area
has entered into another sale-deed with the original owners for an
area of 8 decimals bearing Document No. 434 dated 03.03.2014
and this fact has been concealed by the petitioner at the time of
making his application. Learned counsel for the respondent-
Corporation has stated that the petitioner was well aware that the
land purchased by the petitioner vide sale-deed No. 1772 dated
26.07.2013 was only 12 decimals and not 20 decimals as falsely
claimed by him. Learned counsel submits that the LPG dealership
was obtained by playing fraud on the Corporation and, therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court.
Learned counsel has therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court to
dismiss the present writ petition. Learned counsel has relied on the
following judgments in support of his case.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
6/12
“(i) In the case of District Collector &
Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Scoeity, Vizianagaram and Anr. Vs. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi reported in 1990 3 SCC 655.
(ii) In the case of B.R. Chowdhury vs. Indian
Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. reported in 2004 2 SCC 177.
(iii) In the case of A.P. State Financial
Corporation Vs. M/s Gar Re-rolling Mills and Anr. with
analogous case reported in 1994 2 SCC 647.
(iv) In the case of Meghmala and Ors. vs. G.
Narasimha Reddy and Ors. reported in 2010 8 SCC 383. ”
6. Admittedly, in this particular case as seen from the
record, pursuant to the advertisement given by the Indian Oil
Corporation for appointment of an LPG dealer, the petitioner has
applied for said dealership. The petitioner along with his
application has filed the necessary documents to show that he was
having land admeasuring 20 decimals whereas the actual
requirement of the Corporation is 13.49 decimals. The authority
duly taking into consideration the fact that the land offered by the
petitioner was meeting its requirements and was suitable, has
issued the Letter of Intent (LOI) and, thereafter, entered into an
agreement with the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that earlier
complaint filed by third party on the very same grounds i.e., that
the area offered by the petitioner was not as per the requirements
of the Corporation was closed after physical verification of the
site, wherein, it was found that the godown was constructed over

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
7/12
land admeasuring 20 decimals. The authority thereafter, taking into
account another complaint made by the local MLA have initiated
the present proceedings against the petitioner seeking to cancel the
dealership. The only allegation against the petitioner is that as per
the original sale-deed dated 26.07.2013 relied by the petitioner, the
area though was shown as 20 decimals, was actually admeasuring
only 12 decimals and that the petitioner was aware of the said
deficiency in the required land. And that the petitioner has
suppressed the said fact in his application and the same is evident
as he had entered into another sale-deed with the original vendor
to make up for the balance area of 8 decimals.
7. However, it is to be noted that the physical
verification of the subject land by the Revenue Department found
that the land in possession of the petitioner at the time of
application was 20 decimals. Further, it is to be noted that the
authority on an earlier occasion have rejected the complaint made
by a third party making the very same allegations as made by the
local MLA now. The authority after physical verification of the
offered land by the petitioner have found that the godown is
constructed over an area of 20 decimals. Admittedly, the godown
has been constructed over a land admeasuring 20 decimals of land
which is more than the required area notified by the Corporation.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
8/12
The requirement of the Corporation is only 13.49 decimals
whereas the godown is constructed over an area of 20 decimals.
The contention of the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner
has suppressed the material fact by relying on the sale-deed No.
1772 dated 26.07.2013 and claiming that the land admeasuring 20
decimals was purchased under the said sale-deed is false and,
therefore, they are justified in cancelling the dealership is not
legally tenable.
8. A perusal of the Sale-deed No. 1772 dated
26.07.2013 reveals that the petitioner has purchased 20 decimals
of land with specific boundaries. The petitioner after coming to
know that as per the revenue records an area of 12 decimals is
falling in Khesra No. 2162 & Khata No. 153 and an area 8
decimals is falling in another Number, i.e., Plot No. 2165 Khata
No. 153 and to be on the safe side and to avoid any future
complications or litigations has got executed another sale-deed
dated 03.03.2014 bearing No. 434. But the fact remains that the
petitioner had purchased 20 decimals of land in the year 2013
itself under specific boundaries. The land purchased under the
sale-deed dated 26.07.2013 comprises of both the land in Khasra
No. 2162, Khata No. 153 and Khasra No. 2165, Khata No. 153
admeasuring 12 decimals and 8 decimals respectively. It is

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
9/12
pertinent to note that the godown was also constructed on the said
land of 20 decimals only. Though the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-Corporation has relied on the judgments
cited above. It is to be noted that there is no quarrel with the
propositions of law laid down in the said judgments. However, it is
pertinent to note that the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram
Social Welfare Residential School Scoeity, Vizianagaram and
Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in 1990 3 SCC 655
and in the case of B.R. Chowdhury vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.
and Ors. reported in 2004 2 SCC 177 pertain to service matters
where the employee while filling up the employment form has
given some wrong information. That insofar as the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. State Financial
Corporation Vs. M/s Gar Re-rolling Mills and Anr . with
analogous case reported in 1994 2 SCC 647 is concerned, the same
pertains to powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Meghmala and Ors. vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and Ors. reported in
2010 8 SCC 383 is concerned, the same is on fraud.
9. With all due respect to the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, the above cited

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
10/12
judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case as
there is no suppression of any material fact by the petitioner while
filling up the form. The petitioner was under the genuine
impression that he has purchased the 20 decimals of land under a
registered sale-deed dated 26.07.2013 and has relied on the same.
Further, it is to be noted that the sale document dated 26.07.2013
itself shows that the petitioner had purchased 20 decimals of land
with specific boundaries.
10. Admittedly as per the boundaries shown in the sale-
deed, the area of land is approximately 20 decimals. Merely
because, the petitioner has got another sale-deed executed in his
favour to avoid any technical objections in future while
ascertaining his title, it cannot be said that he has suppressed
material fact or played fraud. Further, it is to be noted that there is
absolutely no complaint from any of the LPG consumers or from
any other authorities from the time the dealership was awarded to
the petitioner. The petitioner has invested substantial amount in
constructing the godown and running of the LPG dealership since
1997. Mere non-mentioning of the second sale deed dated
03.03.2014 in the application does not in manner amount to
playing fraud on the Corporation as the petitioner was already
having ownership of the land admeasuring 20 decimals of land as

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
11/12
per the specific boundaries and the area purchased under the sale-
deed bearing No. 1772 dated 26.07.2013. This Court is of the
opinion that the cancellation of the LPG dealership solely on the
above mentioned ground is too harsh, that to at the behest of the
local MLA who for reasons best known to him is bent on getting
the dealership of the petitioner cancelled. As rightly held by this
Hon’ble Court in CWJC No. 7292 of 2020 dated 14.09.2020
wherein, the Hon’ble High Court under similar circumstances has
held as under;
“This Court is of the further view that
since the error in question does not fall within the non-
rectifiable category, the same can very well be
rectified and moreover, the respondent Corporation
being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India should act fairly and should not
take a hyper-technical view of the matter inasmuch as
though the petitioner has rightly mentioned the plot
number in her application dated 22.12.2018 but on
account of inadvertence the plot number has been
wrongly mentioned in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018,
which has already stood rectified vide the rectification
deed dated 17.03.2020. Consequently, this Court holds
that the error in question i.e. wrong mentioning of the
plot number in the lease deed dated 20.12.2018,
though not in the application form, which has also
stood corrected vide the rectification deed dated
17.03.2020, does not violate any essential condition of
the advertisement/brochure of the respondent
Corporation/FAQ in question, so as to warrant a hyper
technical approach by the respondent Corporation,
thus the impugned action of the respondent
Corporation, as contained in the letter dated
21.04.2020 and in the E-mail communication dated
16.03.2020, declaring the candidature of the petitioner
to be ineligible, is declared to be unreasonable,
arbitrary and illegal.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.12122 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
12/12
11. Having regard to the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the
impugned order dated 13.07.2023 and the same is accordingly set
aside, the present writ petition is allowed. The LPG dealership of
the petitioner shall be restored immediately and the petitioner shall
be allowed to continue the dealership without any impediment.
12. With the above directions, the CWJC stands allowed
to the extent indicated.
(A. Abhishek Reddy, J)
Ayush/-