Provisional selection confers no vested dealership right where offered land fails advertised criteria.

HPCL advertised a Retail Outlet dealership at a location within 2 kilometres of Shobhan “O” Mile towards Simari on the right-hand side of NH-57, Darbhanga, under the open category.

The petitioner applied and was informed on 22 December 2020 that he had been selected, there being only one eligible candidate; however, the selection remained subject to fulfilment of the applicable conditions and verification of the offered land.

The Land Evaluation Committee inspected the petitioner’s initially offered land on 19 February 2021 and found it unsuitable because of deficiencies in its dimensions.

HPCL permitted the petitioner to offer alternative land, whereupon he submitted lease deeds dated 10 April 2021 for land measuring 40 × 45 metres, along with the requisite documents.

On evaluation, the alternative land was also found unsuitable for want of the requisite frontage prescribed in the advertisement.

HPCL consequently rejected the petitioner’s candidature by communication dated 3 May 2022, while permitting him to submit a representation.

The petitioner challenged the rejection, alleging that the alternative land had been properly measured and found suitable by local authorities and that HPCL had acted arbitrarily and contrary to its guidelines.

1. Whether the petitioner acquired an enforceable right to the Retail Outlet dealership merely because he was initially declared selected, notwithstanding the subsequent evaluation of his offered land?

2. Whether HPCL’s rejection of the petitioner’s candidature on the ground that the alternative land lacked the prescribed frontage was arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to the advertisement and applicable guidelines?

3. Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 226 with the technical evaluation conducted by the competent Land Evaluation Committee?

The Court applied the principle that HPCL, being “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, must act fairly, reasonably, objectively, and uniformly, but must also adhere strictly to the eligibility standards and specifications prescribed in its advertisement.

Any relaxation or deviation from the advertised criteria may result in arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.

Relying on M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Raj Kumar Jha & Ors., 2012 (2) PLJR 783, the Court held that an oil corporation must follow the standards stated in the advertisement without variation.

The Court also relied on the order in LPA No. 925 of 2012, Mukesh Pandey v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors.

Further, judicial review under Article 226 does not ordinarily permit the Court to substitute its own assessment for that of a competent expert committee in technical matters, absent illegality, perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of law.

The Court held that the petitioner’s initial selection was provisional and expressly subject to compliance with the advertisement and successful evaluation of the offered land.

The first parcel was rejected for inadequate dimensions, and the alternative parcel was independently evaluated and found deficient in the prescribed frontage.

Since the advertisement’s specifications had to be applied strictly and uniformly, the Court could not direct HPCL to relax the frontage requirement in the petitioner’s favour.

The petitioner’s reliance on measurements or opinions of the Amin and local authorities could not override the determination of the duly constituted Land Evaluation Committee, which had evaluated the land against HPCL’s dealership requirements.

In the absence of proof of mala fides, perversity, arbitrariness, or violation of the applicable guidelines, judicial interference was unwarranted.

It held that the provisional selection did not create a vested or indefeasible right to the dealership and that HPCL lawfully rejected the candidature after finding that the alternative land did not satisfy the prescribed frontage requirement.

The rejection letter dated 3 May 2022 was upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.