Dealership applicants may invoke the prescribed grievance mechanism despite expiry of its limitation period.

The petitioners applied under the same advertisement for Indian Oil Corporation retail outlet dealerships.

Thejas P.C.’s candidature was declared ineligible because Appendix-III had not been submitted for all co-owners of the offered land; Arjun V.S.’s candidature was cancelled during field verification for non-production of original documents and discrepancies between the application and documents produced.

Both challenged the Corporation’s communications under Articles 226 and 227, seeking their quashing and consequential relief.

Whether the petitioners’ challenges to the rejection or cancellation of their candidatures should be considered by the High Court or pursued through the Grievance Redressal System under the applicable Brochure.

Whether the petitioners should be permitted to invoke that system despite expiry of any prescribed period.

The selection process was governed by the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets dated 24.11.2018.

Clause 18 provides a Grievance Redressal System through which a candidate aggrieved by rejection or cancellation may approach the designated authority or forum.

The Court also exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, but did not determine the merits of the petitioners’ eligibility or the Corporation’s stated deficiencies.

The Court noted that neither application had resulted in a letter of intent and that the disputes concerned document sufficiency and verification—matters suitable for examination under the Brochure’s grievance mechanism.

Because the writ petitions had remained pending, the Court considered it appropriate to allow the petitioners to use that mechanism notwithstanding any expired limitation period, while leaving the merits for the competent authority.

The petitioners were permitted to submit grievances to the appropriate authority within four weeks; grievances filed within that period must be entertained without rejection for delay and decided by reasoned orders under the applicable Brochure and guidelines.

The impugned communications were to remain in abeyance until the four-week period expired.