Petrol Pump Applicant Loses Dealership Bid For Not Filing Co-Owner Consent For Joint, Unpartitioned Land: P&H HC

In brief

The question

Whether the Corporation lawfully applied Clause 4(vi)(l) to require the petitioner to submit consent from the co-sharers or a registered power of attorney for the jointly owned, unpartitioned land

The court held

The Court held that the Corporation’s decision to declare the petitioner ineligible disclosed no fallacy or patent illegality.

It also directed

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving in place the impugned ineligibility decision and rejection of the petitioner’s representation

01Facts

The petitioner challenged Indian Oil Corporation’s decision declaring him ineligible for a Retail Outlet Dealership under an advertisement dated 28 June 2023, and the subsequent rejection of his representation

¶ 1, 9

The Corporation relied on Clause 4(vi)(l) of the June 2023 Brochure, which required an applicant offering jointly owned land to submit, by the application date, the co-sharer’s consent by affidavit or a registered power of attorney

¶ 2, 7–8

The land offered by the petitioner remained jointly owned and unpartitioned; the petitioner did not submit the required documents by the prescribed date

¶ 9–10

He argued that the land was within municipal limits, that the co-sharers were in possession of their respective portions, and that separate municipal property identification numbers and tax assessments supported treating it as a separate parcel

¶ 3–4

His representation was rejected, and he filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

¶ 1, 9

02Issues

i.Whether the Corporation lawfully applied Clause 4(vi)(l) to require the petitioner to submit consent from the co-sharers or a registered power of attorney for the jointly owned, unpartitioned land

¶ 7–11

ii.Whether the petitioner’s asserted possession, municipal status, and separate municipal property records excused his failure to provide the required documents by the application date

¶ 10–14

03Law Applied

Clause 4(vi)(l) of the June 2023 Brochure required an applicant offering land jointly owned with a third person to submit that person’s consent in the form of an affidavit and/or a registered power of attorney authorizing the land’s use, on or before the application date

¶ 7–8

The Court treated this advertised eligibility condition as mandatory and held that the Corporation was entitled to require the applicant to cure the deficiency by supplying the specified documents

¶ 11, 13

The Court also considered *Jagwant Kaur v. Union of India and others*, Civil Appeal No. 1040 of 2025, but held that it did not displace the Brochure’s requirement in this case

¶ 14

04Reasoning

The land remained jointly owned in the revenue records and had not been partitioned; the petitioner therefore fell within Clause 4(vi)(l)

¶ 10–11

His claims that the land was within municipal limits, that the co-sharers occupied separate portions, or that municipal records identified separate properties did not establish compliance with the express requirement for consent or a registered power of attorney

¶ 11–12

The petitioner had not furnished those documents by the application date, and the condition had formed part of the advertisement from its inception

¶ 9, 13

The Court found no basis to treat the condition as arbitrary or to excuse compliance by relying on *Jagwant Kaur*

¶ 10, 14