A successful draw confers no distributorship right when the offered land lies outside the advertised location.

Indian Oil Corporation advertised an LPG distributorship at Tisi Narsam, Gram Panchayat Tisi Narsam South, Madhubani, under the OBC category. The petitioner applied, was selected in the draw of lots, and deposited ₹30,000.

During field verification, the Corporation found that the showroom land offered by him was at Sakradhi/Sakrari, not at the advertised location.

The petitioner relied on Circle Officer certificates alleging a discrepancy in the advertised location and asked that his land be accepted or that he be allowed to offer alternative land.

The Corporation rejected his candidature and forfeited the deposit. A fresh selection followed, and the distributorship was commissioned in favour of another candidate.

1. Whether the Corporation lawfully rejected the petitioner’s candidature because the offered showroom land was outside the advertised location, notwithstanding the alleged discrepancy in the advertisement.

2. Whether the petitioner’s selection in the draw of lots entitled him to the distributorship or otherwise warranted interference with the rejection order.

The Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, 2017 required a candidate to satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions, including the requirement that the showroom land be within the advertised location.

A public corporation, as a State instrumentality under Article 12, must act fairly and uniformly and adhere to the standards stated in its advertisement; allowing departures may undermine equal treatment (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 783).

Success in a draw of lots, subject to verification of eligibility, does not confer an indefeasible or vested right to the distributorship.

The Court found that the petitioner’s offered land was at Sakradhi/Sakrari rather than the advertised location, Tisi Narsam. Although he was given an opportunity to offer alternative land within the advertised location, he did not do so and continued to seek acceptance of the original site.

The alleged discrepancy in the advertisement did not excuse non-compliance with the location requirement, and his success in the draw did not create a right to the distributorship.

The Court applied the requirement of strict adherence to advertised selection criteria and also noted that the distributorship had been commissioned in favour of a third party.

It dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and disposed of any pending interlocutory applications.