01Facts
The appellant applied under Group-I for an HPCL retail outlet dealership pursuant to an advertisement dated 28 June 2023.
After being provisionally considered the sole eligible Group-I applicant, he paid the initial security deposit of ₹50,000 and submitted the required documents.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3HPCL rejected his application on 17 June 2024 because the offered land did not meet the minimum frontage requirement of 35 metres.
p. 2 · ¶ 2–3The appellant contended that his father’s land, with 28 metres of frontage, and adjoining land owned by a third party, with 8 metres of frontage, together met the requirement.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–5The respondents maintained that the relevant land documentation established only 29 metres of frontage and that third-party land could not be counted for an application under Group-I.
pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–5The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, and he appealed.
pp. 2–3 · ¶ 1, 302Issues
i.Whether the appellant satisfied the advertisement’s minimum frontage requirement of 35 metres for eligibility under Group-I.
p. 5 · ¶ 7ii.Whether adjoining land belonging to a third party could be counted when assessing the appellant’s eligibility under Group-I.
p. 5 · ¶ 7–803Law Applied
The Court applied the eligibility requirements in the dealership advertisement and the applicable guidelines, including the requirement that the applicant meet the prescribed minimum frontage for the category under which the application was made.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 5, 7–8It held that third-party land could not be counted without proof that the guidelines permitted it, and that provisional eligibility, payment of the security deposit, and submission of documents did not confer an automatic right to the dealership.
p. 5 · ¶ 804Reasoning
The appellant applied under Group-I but did not establish that the land available to him met the 35-metre frontage requirement.
p. 5 · ¶ 8His reliance on adjoining third-party land could not cure that deficiency because he provided no basis showing that the governing guidelines allowed such land to be counted for a Group-I application.
p. 5 · ¶ 8His provisional consideration, payment, and documentary compliance did not create an entitlement to the dealership; nor did the absence of another eligible candidate alter the eligibility requirement.
p. 5 · ¶ 8The Court therefore found no ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision.
p. 5 · ¶ 905Holding
The Court held that the appellant had not established compliance with the minimum frontage requirement and that the third party’s land could not be included on the record before it.
p. 5 · ¶ 8–9It dismissed the writ appeal and confirmed the Single Judge’s order, with no order as to costs.
p. 6 · ¶ 10The appellant was left at liberty to submit a fresh application, which the respondents may consider on its merits and in accordance with law.
p. 6 · ¶ 10Original Court PDF
T.Jeeva RameshvsThe General manager
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
