An inconsistent land-evaluation report requires fresh assessment before a dealership application is rejected.

HPCL advertised a retail-outlet dealership on 28 June 2023.

The petitioner applied for the location on the LHS towards Shorapur, within 8 km of Subhash Chowk, Yadgir, and was selected in the draw of lots and placed on the provisional list.

After remitting the initial security deposit, his application was rejected on 27 January 2025 on the ground that the proposed site did not meet the advertised dimensions.

The petitioner relied on a communication scheduling field verification for 27 September 2024, whereas the rejection referred to an inspection on 23 August 2024.

The respondents’ report recorded the land as 30 metres by 15 metres, but was undated and contained blank columns; the petitioner’s sketch showed different land particulars.

HPCL had meanwhile allotted the outlet to respondent No. 3.

1. Whether the petitioner’s application was properly rejected on the basis of the Land Evaluation Committee’s assessment of the proposed site.

2. Whether the allotment made to respondent No. 3 following that rejection could be sustained.

The petition invoked the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The judgment cites no specific statute, regulation, or precedent governing the land evaluation. It directs that the fresh evaluation and subsequent decision be made “in accordance with law”.

The Court found material uncertainty in the evaluation: the communicated field-verification date differed from the inspection date stated in the rejection, the respondents’ report was undated and incomplete, and its recorded dimensions appeared prima facie inconsistent with the petitioner’s sketch.

These discrepancies warranted a fresh Land Evaluation in the petitioner’s presence rather than reliance on the existing assessment. Because respondent No. 3’s allotment followed the challenged rejection, the Court held that it could not stand.

No costs were ordered.