A duly appointed and commissioned dealer may operate absent a subsisting legal impediment.

HPCL advertised a retail-outlet dealership for a site on SH-77 near Kala Balua, District Araria. Sanjay Kumar was selected in the draw of lots but was later held ineligible because the documents submitted did not satisfactorily establish his lessor’s title to the land offered. The Corporation rejected his grievance after he was directed to use its grievance-redressal mechanism; he then sought to quash that rejection and obtain the dealership.

Meanwhile, Chhotu Kumar was selected in a subsequent draw, received a Letter of Intent and Letter of Appointment, obtained statutory clearances, and had his outlet commissioned. Although the Corporation had not permitted him to begin sales, the Court directed it to do so by an interim order dated 19 December 2023.

The two petitions were heard together.

1. Whether the Corporation’s decision to reject Sanjay Kumar’s candidature for failure to establish the lessor’s title to the offered land warranted judicial interference.

2. Whether Chhotu Kumar, whose dealership had been appointed and commissioned, could be prevented from commencing sales while Sanjay Kumar’s challenge was pending.

The judgment identifies no specific statute, regulation, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applies the Corporation’s dealership-selection process and the requirement that a candidate establish the relevant land eligibility through adequate supporting documents.

It also proceeds on the basis that, absent a subsisting legal impediment, a duly appointed and commissioned dealer may operate the outlet in accordance with law.

As to Sanjay Kumar, the Corporation found that the revenue record did not support the additional 20 decimals claimed under a mutual partition and that the documents did not establish the lessor’s title to the land offered. The Court noted that he had been given an opportunity to produce the relevant documents, found no sufficient ground to interfere with the Corporation’s decision, and dismissed his petition.

As to Chhotu Kumar, the Court relied on his subsequent selection, appointment, statutory clearances, and commissioning of the outlet, together with the absence of any subsisting legal bar to sales. It also noted its earlier direction permitting sales.

CWJC No. 17154 of 2023 was allowed, and HPCL was directed to permit Chhotu Kumar to continue selling petroleum products in accordance with law.

Any interlocutory applications were disposed of.