A distributorship location cannot be cancelled merely because the identified village falls within another Mauza.

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (“IOCL”) advertised “Garh Banaili Bazar, District Purnea” as a location for Gramin LPG Distributorship on 17 June 2017.

The petitioner applied and was declared successful in the online draw held on 30 January 2018.

During field verification, IOCL noted from the petitioner’s documents that the land was situated in Ghordaur Mauza.

On clarification, the Circle Officer, Kasba, stated that Garh Banaili Bazar was not a separate Mauza or revenue village, but fell within Ghordaur Mauza.

On that basis, IOCL cancelled the advertised location and consequently the petitioner’s selection by communication dated 7 January 2019.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation and sought reconsideration of his candidature and issuance of a Letter of Intent.

During the proceedings, an online communication and newspaper publication indicated that a fresh draw might be held for the same location, although IOCL later explained that these resulted from an inadvertent portal and administrative error.

The State authorities clarified that Garh Banaili Bazar was a village under Ghordaur Mauza and that they had no role in IOCL’s selection or cancellation decision.

Whether IOCL was justified in cancelling the advertised location and the petitioner’s selection on the ground that Garh Banaili Bazar was not a separate Mauza or revenue village and fell under Ghordaur Mauza?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to reconsideration of his candidature and consequential issuance of a Letter of Intent, subject to fulfilment of the applicable requirements?

The Court applied the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, under which the expression “village” refers to a revenue village, together with the terms of the IOCL advertisement and the administrative-law requirement that an executive decision must be based on relevant materials and cannot arbitrarily defeat a selection after the advertised process has been completed.

The Court also applied the principle that an advertised location must be understood in accordance with the factual and official description adopted by the competent revenue authority; the mere fact that an identifiable village or locality falls within a larger Mauza does not, by itself, render the location non-existent or invalid.

The Court found that the Circle Officer’s report did not establish that Garh Banaili Bazar was non-existent; rather, it specifically described Garh Banaili Bazar as a village having a post office and railway station and stated that it fell under Ghordaur Mauza.

The State’s counter-affidavit supported the same factual position.

Accordingly, the Court held that the distinction between the advertised locality and the larger Mauza could not sustain cancellation, particularly because IOCL itself had advertised Garh Banaili Bazar as the relevant location, accepted the petitioner’s application, and declared him successful in the draw.

The subsequent mistaken communications regarding a re-draw further supported the petitioner’s grievance, although the Court treated them as an incidental administrative issue rather than the principal basis of decision.

Thus, the stated ground for cancellation was found unsustainable.

The cancellation decision was set aside.

IOCL was directed to reconsider the petitioner’s candidature in accordance with the applicable guidelines and to take consequential action, including issuance of a Letter of Intent, if he otherwise fulfilled the prescribed requirements and no other legal impediment existed.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed.