Sugrive Prasad Charmkar vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
1 WA-3084-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
nd
ON THE 22 OF JUNE, 2026
WRIT APPEAL No. 3084 of 2025
SUGRIVE PRASAD CHARMKAR
Versus
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
Appearance:
Shri Siddhant Kochar - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Aditya Adhikari - Senior Advocate Ms. Anannya Shree Adhikari -
Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
Per: Pradeep Mittal J.
This Writ Appeal challenges the judgment dated 26.08.2025 of the
Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 21898/2025, which dismissed the
appellant's petition against cancellation of his candidature for a retail outlet
dealership at Village Chachai, District Rewa.
2. The question is whether an appellant who has relied in good faith
upon official state records and for whom the true owner has since affirmed
the transaction should be penalized for clerical errors in the state's
computerized database.
3. The appellant applied for a retail outlet dealership in response to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
2 WA-3084-2025
IOCL's advertisement dated 14.12.2018. He submitted a registered lease

deed dated 22.12.2022 from Vishwesh Prasad Tripathi, who was shown in
the official computerized revenue records (khatauni) as the landowner. IOCL
issued a Letter of Intent, and the Collector granted a statutory no-objection
certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 1934 on 21.06.2023.
Later, it was discovered that a clerical or software error in the 2014-2023
digitization of records had wrongly substituted Vishwesh's name for his
uncle Bhimsen Tripathi, the true owner. After correction of the records in
June 2023, Bhimsen executed an affidavit dated 16.02.2024 affirming the
lease and consenting to a 30 year lease deed. Despite this correction and
affirmation by the true owner, the Respondents cancelled the appellant's
candidature.
4. The Learned Single Judge relied on the principle that eligibility
must be absolute and without defect as of the application date, and that post-
application corrections cannot cure such defects. The Single Judge held that
Clause 22 of the IOCL Brochure permitted rejection if the appellant’s
statements were false or incorrect, and that the absence of the true owner's
name in the 2018 records constituted a disqualifying defect.
5. We are unable to accept this reasoning. The critical distinction is
that the appellant relied upon official state records. A citizen cannot be
expected to investigate whether the state's own computerized database
contains genealogical or administrative errors. Here, the appellant obtained a
properly registered lease from the person officially identified by the state as
the landowner. The error lay entirely within the state's administrative
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
3 WA-3084-2025
machinery, not in the applicant's conduct. To penalize the applicant for an

error committed by the state authorities themselves would be manifestly
unjust.
6. The doctrine of estoppel requires that when a public authority
presents official records as true and a citizen acts in good faith upon that
representation, the authority cannot later deny its own representation to the
citizen's detriment. The Respondent-IOCL itself acted upon these same state
records when issuing the Letter of Intent and facilitating the Collector's no-
objection certificate. The Respondents cannot now turn against the appellant
and cancel his candidature for relying upon the very records that the
Respondents themselves accepted and acted upon.
7. Clause 4(e) of the IOCL Selection Brochure expressly states that
land owned by family members may be considered if the family member
executes a consent affidavit. Although the term 'uncle' is not explicitly listed
among the enumerated family members, the list is not exhaustive. The
essential requirement of Clause 4(e) the true owner's written consent has
been satisfied. Bhimsen Tripathi has provided exactly what Clause 4(e)
requires, an affidavit of consent dated 16.02.2024 affirming the lease in the
appellant's favour.
8. Here, Bhimsen Tripathi, the rightful landowner, has unequivocally
ratified the lease executed by his nephew Vishwesh. This affidavit, together
with the Patwari's possession certificate dated 30.04.2024 and the Gram
Panchayat's certificate, constitutes complete rectification of any defect that
may have existed.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
4 WA-3084-2025
9. The underlying purpose of the eligibility requirement is to ensure

that the selected candidate has secure access to viable land for operating the
retail outlet. This purpose is fully satisfied in the present case: the appellant
holds a registered lease, possesses the land physically, has obtained the
Collector's clearance, and now has the affirmation and consent of the true
owner. The rigid insistence that the true owner's name was not visible in the
2018 computerized records transforms a technically satisfied requirement
into an instrument of injustice.
10. Clause 22 of the Brochure permits rejection only if the applicant's
statements are false, incorrect, or intentionally misleading. The information
supplied by the appellant was accurate according to the official state records
available at the time of application. There was no dishonesty, concealment,
or intent to deceive. The error lay in the state's records, not in the appellant's
conduct. This provision cannot be invoked to penalize reliance upon the
state's own negligence or administrative error.
11. A registered lease agreement for land bearing Khasra No. 1023
was executed on 22.12.2022 by Vishwesh Prasad Tripathi, who was reflected
in the official revenue records dated 07.12.2022 as the owner and person in
possession of the said land. On 3.01.2024, the Tehsildar issued a certificate
of ownership recognizing Bhimsen Tripathi as the rightful owner of the
ancestral land bearing Khasra No. 1023, comprising an area of 1.283
hectares. Following this correction, Bhimsen Tripathi executed an affidavit
dated 16.02.2024 affirming the lease transaction and consenting to the
appellant's possession. Subsequently, on 14.03.2026, a fresh lease deed was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
5 WA-3084-2025
executed by Bhimsen Tripathi in favour of the appellant, further reinforcing

the validity of the arrangement and the true owner's unequivocal consent to
the allotment. The record clearly demonstrates that at the time of filing the
application for allotment of the retail outlet, Vishwesh Prasad Tripathi was
the recorded owner of the land according to the state's computerized records.
It was subsequently discovered that a family succession matter had resulted
in Bhimsen Tripathi becoming the true and rightful owner. Upon acquiring
knowledge of this factual development, Bhimsen Tripathi immediately
executed a fresh lease deed dated 14.03.2026 and affidavit dated 16.02.2024
in favour of the appellant, thereby rectifying the defect that had existed at the
time of submission of the application.
12. This Court finds direct support and strong precedent in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Vinod Kumar v. Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (2003) 10 SCC 681. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court, dealing with an analogous eligibility condition requiring submission
of land documents in an application for LPG distributorship, held as under:
"So far as the requirement of instruction (g) as stated above is
concerned, it does not appear to be mandatory. The purpose of furnishing
particulars of land in the application is to enable a determination as to
whether the specific place would accommodate the godown facilities and
distributorship arrangements from a commercial angle. This requirement is
mandatory but satisfying the requirement at the stage of making the
application is only directory. The particulars of such land can be made
available even subsequent to the filing of the application, and may even be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
6 WA-3084-2025
subsequent to the selection. The consequence of failure to make the suitable

land available within a period of two months from the date of selection is that
the selection of such candidate would be liable to be cancelled. It is clear that
in spite of having been selected, the appellant was granted four months’ time
by the employer Corporation for identifying a suitable plot of land and
having the same approved by the employer. If availability or identification of
the land would have been a pre-condition to the filing of the application
itself, BPCL, by its letter dated January 5, 2001, would not have given the
appellant an opportunity for the same, nor would it have allowed him four
months’ time for the purpose."
13. The principle articulated in K. Vinod Kumar stands squarely
applicable to the present case. The IOCL scheme does not mandate that the
name of the true owner must appear in the applicant's application documents,
rather, it requires that the applicant possess eligible land and demonstrate the
landowner's consent. The Supreme Court's distinction between a mandatory
substantive requirement and a merely directory procedural requirement is
precisely in point. Just as BPCL permitted the identified candidate to acquire
suitable land after the date of selection, the present case permits the true
owner to ratify and affirm the transaction after the date of application. The
appellant has satisfied all substantive requirements, he possesses the land,
operates it for the commercial purpose of the retail outlet, and now holds the
affirmation and formal consent of the true owner, further cemented by the
fresh lease deed dated 14.03.2026. The defect, if any, has been completely
cured through Bhimsen Tripathi's affidavit dated 16.02.2024, the fresh lease
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:44614
7 WA-3084-2025
deed dated 14.03.2026, and the supporting documentary evidence. To reject

the candidature on the narrow and technical ground that the then-recorded
owner's name did not reflect the true beneficial ownership, when such
ownership has since been definitively established and affirmed, would be to
sacrifice substantive justice for hollow proceduralism.
14. For these reasons, the judgment of the Learned Single Judge
cannot be sustained. The Writ Appeal is ALLOWED.
15. The cancellation order passed by the Respondent Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. is hereby QUASHED. The Respondents are directed to pass
the fresh order after considering the affidavit dated 16.02.2024 executed by
Bhimsen Tripathi, the lease deed dated 22.12.2022 executed by Vishwesh
Prasad Tripathi, the fresh lease deed dated 14.03.2026 executed by Bhimsen
Tripathi, the ownership certificate dated 22.01.2025 issued by the Naib
Tehsildar, and the possession certificate dated 30.04.2024 issued by the
Patwari, within eight weeks from the date of this judgment.
16. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per
the rules of the Court.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE
Praveen

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRAVEEN
Signing time:
6/29/2026 1:51:31 PM