Retail outlet applicants must establish ownership or qualifying family share of the minimum required land.

Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited applications for a Regular/Rural Retail Outlet dealership at a location within 2 km of Kanhachatti Block, Chatra, under the open category.

The appellant applied under Group-1, relying on land comprised in Plot Nos. 166 and 167, and was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 21.06.2019.

The Land Evaluation Committee inspected the site on 23.10.2019.

Subsequently, by letter dated 29.02.2020, the Corporation declared the appellant ineligible on the ground that he was not in possession of land having the required dimension and area.

The dealership was subsequently awarded to Jitendra Kumar Dubey, and the outlet was stated to be functioning.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition on 22.08.2023. The present Letters Patent Appeal challenged that order.

The appellant also sought condonation of a 62-day delay, which was allowed.

Whether the appellant satisfied the Brochure’s requirement of ownership or possession of the minimum prescribed land for allotment of the Group-1 retail outlet dealership?

Whether the appellant could rely on the shares or consent affidavits of his uncles to fulfil the prescribed land requirement under Clauses 4(v)(e), 4(v)(i) and 4(v)(j) of the Brochure?

Whether the Corporation violated the principles of natural justice by not granting the appellant 21 days to clarify the objection concerning the land?

Whether relief could be granted in view of the subsequent allotment and functioning of the retail outlet in favour of a third party who was not initially impleaded?

The Court applied the eligibility conditions contained in the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular/Rural Retail Outlets, particularly Clause 4(v)(e), concerning the relevant family members; Clause 4(v)(i), concerning land ownership or possession through the prescribed consent mechanism; and Clause 4(v)(j), requiring that where the land is jointly owned, the applicant’s and/or eligible family members’ share must be at least equal to the land required by the Corporation.

The prescribed minimum land requirement was 400 sq. metres with dimensions of 20 metres by 20 metres.

The Court further applied the principle that breach of natural justice is not invariably fatal unless the aggrieved person establishes prejudice, particularly where granting a further opportunity would be futile.

It also relied on Virender Chaudhary v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation, (2009) 1 SCC 297, which holds that writ relief is discretionary and may be refused on grounds of delay, laches, equitable considerations and creation of third-party rights.

The Court held that although Plot No. 167 had an aggregate area of 20 decimals and dimensions exceeding 20 metres by 20 metres, the land was recorded in the name of the appellant’s grandfather and had devolved equally upon his three sons.

The appellant failed to produce any document establishing ownership of the entire 20 decimals. Consequently, only his father’s one-third share—approximately 6.33 decimals or 256 sq. metres—could be considered, which was below the required 400 sq. metres.

The uncles’ shares could not be treated as belonging to the appellant’s eligible family members under Clause 4(v)(e), and the consent affidavits could not cure the substantive deficiency under Clause 4(v)(j), since the appellant and eligible family members did not collectively possess the required area.

The Court further found no actionable violation of natural justice. The deficiency related to the appellant’s lack of requisite ownership, not to a curable defect in the documents. Therefore, granting additional time would not have altered his legal position and no prejudice was demonstrated.

Finally, the dealership had already been allotted to Jitendra Kumar Dubey and was functioning. Despite knowledge of the allotment, the appellant had not impleaded the allottee before the writ court and sought impleadment only belatedly in the appeal, resulting in the creation of third-party rights.

The Court therefore declined discretionary relief.

His uncles’ shares and consent affidavits could not be relied upon to cure the shortfall, and the absence of a further clarification opportunity caused no prejudice because the defect was substantive and incurable.

In view of the subsequent allotment, the creation of third-party rights, and the appellant’s delay in impleading the allottee, no equitable relief was warranted.

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, the order dated 22.08.2023 of the learned Single Judge was affirmed, and any pending interlocutory application was also dismissed.