Patna HC Upholds Shift Of BPCL Dealership Applicant To Group 3 For Not Submitting NHAI Clarification On Plot Suitability

BPCL advertised a retail outlet dealership at a location on NH-2C, Rohtas, reserved for the Scheduled Caste category.

Kavita Kumari applied under Group 1, offering Plot No. 646, and was initially selected.

Following a site inspection, the Land Evaluation Committee noted roads near the offered land and BPCL directed her to obtain NHAI clarification on its suitability.

The NHAI provided a letter and map, but the Court found that Kumari had not produced the required clarification establishing the land’s suitability.

BPCL therefore shifted her candidature to Group 3.

Although Group 3 applicants were later given opportunities to offer suitable land, Kumari did not do so; the location was ultimately dropped because no eligible candidate was available.

She sought to quash BPCL’s decision and obtain the dealership, alleging that the decision was made without a hearing.

The Court dismissed the petition.

The Court applied the Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2018, under which the candidate was required to obtain and submit NHAI clarification regarding the suitability of the offered land when concerns were raised during the land evaluation process.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent.

It also considered the principles of natural justice, concluding on the facts that no violation had occurred.

The Land Evaluation Committee identified roads near the plot, and BPCL gave Kumari an opportunity to seek NHAI clarification.

The Court found that she had not produced a document showing that the concerned NHAI officers had confirmed the land’s suitability.

It therefore upheld her transfer from Group 1 to Group 3.

The Court also noted that she did not avail herself of the later opportunity to offer suitable land under Group 3 and that BPCL had selected no third party for the location.

In those circumstances, it found no error in BPCL’s decision and no infringement of fundamental rights or breach of natural justice.

Finding no infringement of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice, it dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and disposed of any interlocutory applications.