Absence of pre-deadline demarcation is not fatal where a valid registered lease existed.

HPCL issued an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 for allotment of a Rural Retail Outlet Dealership at the advertised location between Anchalik Matia Vidyalaya Randia and HS Ramdia School, Ramdia.

The petitioner and respondent no. 6 participated in the selection process. Under the advertisement, applicants possessing suitable land through ownership or a long-term lease could be placed in Group 1, whereas applicants without land were placed in Group 3. The petitioner, having no land, was placed in Group 3, while respondent no. 6 was placed in Group 1 on the basis of a registered lease deed dated 25.07.2023.

The petitioner challenged respondent no. 6’s selection, contending that the leased land formed part of a larger plot owned by family members and had not been demarcated before the last date for submission of applications, i.e., 17.10.2023.

HPCL contended that the lessors’ title arose from a sale deed dated 03.04.2021, the lease was executed before the application deadline, and the land was subsequently demarcated on 12.11.2025. An LoI was issued on 30.07.2025 after issuance of the requisite NOC by the District Commissioner.

Whether respondent no. 6 was validly placed in Group 1 on the basis of the registered lease deed dated 25.07.2023, despite the leased land having been demarcated only after the last date for submission of applications.

Whether HPCL’s acceptance of the lease deed and selection of respondent no. 6 were arbitrary, unreasonable, or contrary to the mandatory conditions of the advertisement, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court applied the conditions of HPCL’s advertisement, particularly Clause 4(6), which permitted eligibility under Group 1 on the basis of ownership or a long-term lease for 19 years and 11 months, and Clauses 4(iv)(a) and 4(iv)(g), concerning land availability, execution by multiple owners, and NOCs from family members.

The Court also applied the principles governing judicial review under Article 226, namely that interference is justified where the administrative decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or violates a mandatory tender condition, but that the decision-making authority is entitled to reasonable “free play in the joints” within the bounds of law.

The decisions in Ram Chandra Sarkar v. HPCL, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 3003, Nipun Das v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Gau 4699, and Prabin Das v. BPCL, WP(C)/4369/2024, were considered and distinguished on their facts.

The Court found that the lessors’ title was supported by a sale deed dated 03.04.2021 and that the registered lease deed in favour of respondent no. 6 was executed on 25.07.2023, both before the application deadline of 17.10.2023.

There was no challenge to the validity of the sale deed or the lease deed, nor was the lessors’ ownership disputed before any forum. The only objection concerned the absence of demarcation before the deadline.

The Court held that, once HPCL was satisfied with the registered lease deed and no mandatory advertisement condition had been violated, the subsequent demarcation did not render the selection arbitrary or unreasonable.

The precedents relied upon by the petitioner involved cases where the applicants’ ownership was clouded and their candidature had been rejected; those circumstances were materially different from the present case.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on merits, with no order as to costs.