Candidature may be rejected where offered land is unsuitable and substitution is barred by advertisement.

The appellant applied for an Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“IOCL”) dealership for a Kisan Seva Kendra (“KSK”) pursuant to the relevant advertisement.

After verification, IOCL found that the land originally offered by the appellant was unsuitable.

The appellant initially challenged the marks awarded to the private respondent and subsequently amended the writ petition to seek issuance of a Letter of Intent in her favour.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant’s land was unsuitable and that the advertisement did not permit the subsequent offer of alternative land.

The candidature of the private respondent had also been cancelled during the pendency of the writ proceedings.

The present intra-court appeal challenged that dismissal.

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in upholding IOCL’s finding that the land originally offered by the appellant was unsuitable for the KSK dealership?

Whether the appellant could offer an alternative parcel of land at a subsequent stage despite the terms of the relevant advertisement prohibiting such change?

Whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in a Letters Patent Appeal?

The Court applied the principle that an intra-court appeal is discretionary and that a Division Bench ordinarily should not interfere with a finding of fact recorded by a learned Single Judge unless there are cogent reasons or the finding is perverse, as stated in Umabai v. Nilkanth Dhondiba Chavan, (2005) 6 SCC 243.

It further relied on Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Workmen, (2016) 3 SCC 340, which holds that a finding of fact in an intra-court appeal should not be disturbed merely because another or better view is possible, unless the finding is perverse.

The Court also enforced the express terms of the IOCL advertisements, which provided that an applicant could not offer another parcel of land subsequently if the land initially offered was found unsuitable.

The Court found that IOCL had issued a speaking order dated 8 April 2023 recording that the appellant’s original land did not connect with the main road, since Khesra No. 306 intervened between Khesra No. 106 and the road.

The appellant produced no substantive material demonstrating that the land nevertheless satisfied the requirements of the advertisement; her assertion of suitability was insufficient to displace IOCL’s factual determination.

The Court further held that the appellant’s offer of alternative land could not be accepted because the advertisement expressly prohibited substitution of the originally offered land at a later stage.

Since these findings were neither illegal nor perverse, and the appellant failed to establish any cogent ground for appellate interference, the limited scope of the Letters Patent Appeal was not exceeded by the learned Single Judge.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the judgment dated 7 March 2025, the Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.

Any pending applications were also disposed of.