Rajesh Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

-1-
CWP-20724-2024 (O&M)


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-20724-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2026

Rajesh Kumar ….Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ….Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Svarmin Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Lakshya Saini, Advocate,
Mr. Ritesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sudhir Nar, Senior Panel Counsel,
for the respondent-Union of India.

Mr. M.S.Rana, Advocate, for
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3.



KULDEEP TIWARI , J. (Oral)


1. The petitioner, by instituting the instant writ petition under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has assailed the
communication dated 06.05.2024 (Annexure P-10), vide which, he was
declared ineligible for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership, in pursuance
of an advertisement dated 28.06.2023, and also the letter dated
03.07.2024 (Annexure P-12), whereby, his representation was also
rejected.
2. In a nutshell, the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation
declared the petitioner ineligible, in view of Clause 4(vi)(l) of the
Brochure of Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets,
June 2023 (for short, ‘the Brochure’), which casts an imposition upon the
applicants to submit a consent of all the co-sharers, if the land is recorded
as joint holding in the revenue record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while challenging the
AMIT KUMAR
legality of the abovesaid communication and letter, submits that the land
2026.11.13 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

-2-
CWP-20724-2024 (O&M)


in question falls within the Municipal limits, and all the co-sharers are
already in possession, as per their respective shares. Likewise, even the
lessor is enjoying his exclusive possession over the land in question. He
asserts that the other co-sharers have already raised construction on their
portions, and the land is commercial in nature, therefore, the partition
thereof is nothing but a formality. However, the casual approach adopted
by the respondent-Oil Corporation, while overlooking the material fact
that the lessor is also in exclusive possession, has turned the tables.
4. Moving to the other limb of the submissions, it is argued
that separate property identification numbers have been allotted by the
Municipal Corporation concerned, and accordingly, separate property tax
is being levied, which clearly establishes that the land in question is a
separate parcel, even if it is reflected as joint holding in the revenue
record. To lend vigour to the contentions, he places reliance upon a
decision dated 27.01.2025, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No.1040-2025 (Jagwnat Kaur Vs. Union of India and
others).
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Oil
Corporation vociferously opposes the claim of the petitioner. Precisely,
he submits that the requirement mentioned in Clause 4(vi)(l) of the
Brochure is sacrosanct, and thus, the respondent-Corporation, under any
circumstances, cannot deviate therefrom. Accordingly, since the
petitioner did not meet the abovesaid condition, his candidature was
rightly rejected.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced on
behalf of the parties, and perused the record.
7. Since the entire controversy revolves around Clause 4(vi)(l)
of the Brochure, it would be necessary to refer thereto, before adverting
to the merits of the matter:-

“In case the applicant or family member(s) own the land
jointly with third person, the consent letter in the form of an
Affidavit (Appendix - III) and /or Power of Attorney (Registered)
clearly authorizing the applicant for such use of land from third
person is also required. Such consent letter in the form of
AMIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

-3-
CWP-20724-2024 (O&M)


affidavit (Appendix - III) or Power of Attorney (Registered)
should have been tendered by the concerned third person(s) on
or before the date of application.”



8. A bare perusal of the above extracted provision
unequivocally indicates that if the applicant or family member(s) owns
the land jointly with third person, a consent letter in the form of affidavit
and/or registered power of attorney, thereby, authorizing him/her for such
use of land from said person is required to be submitted on or before the
date of application.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner was requested to upload
certain documents, including the consent/registered power of attorney, in
terms of Appendix-III, as demonstrated above, vide e-mail dated
20.01.2024 (Annexure P-8). However, he did not submit the required
documents, with a view to remove the rectifiable defects before the date
of application, and as a consequence, he was declared ineligible vide
impugned communication (Annexure P-10). However, he was granted an
opportunity to submit a representation against the abovesaid decision.
Accordingly, he filed a representation that since he had uploaded all the
documents on portal on 09.02.2024, his claim may be considered
sympathetically, after due verification, which too met with the same fate,
and was rejected, vide impugned order dated 03.07.2024 (Annexure
P-12).
10. The most significant factual aspect, which has a direct
bearing upon the issue involved, is that the land offered by the petitioner
is jointly owned by several persons, out of which, two, including him,
had applied for the Retail Outlet. Further, the land in question has not
been partitioned to date. Pertinently, learned counsel for the petitioner
failed to refer to any material available on record, which could even
remotely suggest that the abovesaid condition was arbitrarily imposed
upon him, and had no nexus with any statutory provision.
11. The contention that the land falls within the Municipal
limits, and therefore, partition or consent of the co-sharers is of no
significance, has no legs to stand. Concededly, as per the record of
rights, the land in question is jointly owned by the lessor of the petitioner,
AMIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

-4-
CWP-20724-2024 (O&M)


along with other persons. In such a situation, this Court is of the affirmed
view that the respondent-Oil Corporation was under legal obligation to
require the petitioner to cure the deficiency by submitting the requisite
documents.
12. The next submission that since the other co-sharers are in
possession of their respective shares, and have even raised construction
thereupon, therefore, the lessor of the petitioner would also be in a legal
possession of the land in question, was noted for the purpose of rejection
only. Suffice it to observe that mere possession of the lessor cannot
change the nature of the land, which, as indicated above, is recorded as
joint.
13. The crucial and decisive consideration, which cannot be
overlooked by this Court, is that the condition, as referred to above, was
part of the advertisement since inception. Once the petitioner remained
unable to fulfill the mandatory criteria by furnishing the necessary
documents, the respondent-Corporation cannot be said to be at fault,
while declaring him ineligible.
14. So far as the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner in Jagwant Kaur (supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel with
the observations recorded therein. However, the decision is predicated
upon the factual matrix of the said case, and does not lay any proposition,
by virtue of which, either the applicability of clause 4 (vi)(l) of the
Brochure in the present case, can be dispensed with or the petitioner can
be absolved of his obligation.
15. In the wake of the above, this Court has no hesitation to
conclude that the decision taken by the respondent-Corporation to reject
the candidature of the petitioner suffers from no fallacy or patent
illegality. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.



( KULDEEP TIWARI )
JUDGE
12.11.2026
Ak Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
AMIT KUMAR
2026.11.13 16:33
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document