# Aditya Vikram Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1793
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 10709 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-vikram-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-51887
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law -candidature for retail outlet
dealership of BPCL cancelled-lease of the
land concerned executed by only of the coowners-violation of Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023 violatedsuccessful application of the award of retail
dealership
outlet-a
lease
deed
duly
executed by all the co-sharers of the
offered land on the date of applicationnecessary-Petition dismissed. (Paragraphs
9 to 12)

HELD:
From all that has been narrated hereinabove, it
is clear that law on the issue regarding the lease
of the offered land is well settled, i.e., for the
successful application of the award of retail
dealership outlet, it is incumbent upon the
applicant that he/she must have a lease deed
duly executed by all the co-sharers of the offered
land on the date of the application. (Para 11)

In view of the facts as narrated hereinabove, it is
abundantly clear that the petitioner was not
having the lease in respect of the offered land in
terms of clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealership
Selection Guidelines, 2023 and as such, in the
light of the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Rahul Singh (Supra), he was not
1794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
eligible
for
being
considered
for
the
allotment/award of the retail dealership outlet.
The impugned rejection of the candidature of the
applicant/petitioner vide E-mail/order dated
01.03.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity.
Therefore,
the
decision
of
BPCL/respondent
no.
3
in
rejecting
the
candidature of the applicant/petitioner needs no
interference. (Para 12)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Aditya Vikram Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1793
succeed to the leasehold rights of her dead
husband.

12. We are fortified in our view also by
the definition given of "agriculture" in SubSection 2 of Section 4 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 where agriculture is defined to
include horticulture, animal husbandry,
pisciculture(fisheries),
flower
farming,
beekeeping and poultry farms,

13. The instructions sent by the S.D.M.
are kept on record.

14. We find that the view taken by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sandila, Hardoi
in the instructions is against the law settled
by this Court and also against the provisions
of Section 108 of the U.P. Revenue Code
read with Rule 59 of the Rules of 2016.

15. The writ petition is allowed. We
further issue a direction to the SubDivisional Magistrate to grant the benefits
of succession to the petitioner on the
fisheries rights of her late husband and pass
an appropriate orders within a period of
three weeks from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him. If any
order has been passed cancelling such lease
only on the grounds of death of the lessee,
the said order is set aside.

16. Till such a decision is taken no
coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner.

17. Learned Standing Counsel shall
inform of the order passed today of the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned through
Fax without waiting such order to be
uploaded on the online portal.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1793
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

Writ-C No. 10709 of 2024

Aditya Vikram Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashish Rai, Sri Pawan Giri, Sri Rishabh
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, Sri
Santosh Kumar Singh, Sri Puneet Agarwal

Civil Law -candidature for retail outlet
dealership of BPCL cancelled-lease of the
land concerned executed by only of the coowners-violation of Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Dealer Selection Guidelines, 2023 violatedsuccessful application of the award of retail
dealership
outlet-a
lease
deed
duly
executed by all the co-sharers of the
offered land on the date of applicationnecessary-Petition dismissed. (Paragraphs
9 to 12)

HELD:
From all that has been narrated hereinabove, it
is clear that law on the issue regarding the lease
of the offered land is well settled, i.e., for the
successful application of the award of retail
dealership outlet, it is incumbent upon the
applicant that he/she must have a lease deed
duly executed by all the co-sharers of the offered
land on the date of the application. (Para 11)

In view of the facts as narrated hereinabove, it is
abundantly clear that the petitioner was not
having the lease in respect of the offered land in
terms of clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealership
Selection Guidelines, 2023 and as such, in the
light of the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Rahul Singh (Supra), he was not
1794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
eligible
for
being
considered
for
the
allotment/award of the retail dealership outlet.
The impugned rejection of the candidature of the
applicant/petitioner vide E-mail/order dated
01.03.2024 does not suffer from any illegality or
infirmity.
Therefore,
the
decision
of
BPCL/respondent
no.
3
in
rejecting
the
candidature of the applicant/petitioner needs no
interference. (Para 12)

Petition dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rahul Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. &
ors. having writ number as Writ C No. 7354 of
2024

2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Swapnil
Singh reported in 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1922

(Delivered by Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan
Rizvi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pawan Giri along with Sri
Rishabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri Gaurav Kant Chand, learned
counsel appearing for the Union of India and
Sri Puneet Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:

"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction
in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned
order
dated
01.03.2024
(Annexure no.1) passed by the respondent
no.3, wherein the respondent no.3 has
declared the Petitioner ineligible and also
cancelled the candidature of the petitioner
for the allotment of the Retail Outlet
Dealerships Petrol Pump for the TerritoryDeoria, District- Maharajganj, Location
Description-FROM CHIUTAHA BAZAR
CHURAHA UPTO 2KMS EITHER SIDE
ON PARTWAL-NICHLAUL ROAD, with
regard to the Appointment of Retail Outlet
Dealerships in the State of Uttar Pradesh by
Bharat
Petroleum
Corporation
Ltd.
(BPCL).

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent authorities to allot the Retail
Outlet Dealerships Petrol Pump to the
petitioner
for
the
Territory-
Deoria,
District-Maharajganj,
Location
Description-FROM CHIUTAHA BAZAR
CHURAHA UPTO 2KMS EITHER SIDE
ON PARTWAL- NICHLAUL ROAD.
 III. Issue a writ, order, or
direction in the nature of Mandamus
restraining the respondent no.3 from issuing
fresh notification for conducting fresh draw
of lots for the allotment of the Retail Outlet
Dealerships Petrol Pump for the TerritoryDeoria
District-Maharajganj,
Location
Description-FROM CHIUTAНА BAZAR
UPTO CHURAHA 2KMS EITHER SIDE
ON PARTWAL-NICHLAUL ROAD, with
regard to the Appointment of Retail Outlet
Dealerships in the State of Uttar Pradesh by
Bharat
Petroleum
Corporation
Ltd.
(BPCL).
 IV. Issue any other writ, order, or
direction, which this Hon'ble Court may
deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case; and

V. To award the cost of the Writ
Petition in favour of the Petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case that are
relevant for the adjudication of the instant
writ petition are that Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd ( (hereinafter referred to as
BPCL) / respondent no. 2 issued an
advertisement dated 28.06.2023 inviting
applications for the appointment/award of
Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump for the
Deoria, District Maharajganj, Location
Description⎯
from
Chiutahа
Bazar,
Churaha upto 2 kms, either side on Partwal-
5 All. Aditya Vikram Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1795
Nichlaul Road. The petitioner applied for
the award of the said retail outlet dealership
and received a confirmation of the same
from BPCL / respondent no. 2 via E-mail
dated 25.11.2023. The date for the draw of
lots was fixed as 07.12.2023, in which, the
petitioner participated. On the same day, the
petitioner was informed via E-mail that he
has been declared as provisionally selected
for the award of Retail Outlet Dealership
Petrol Pump. The petitioner was required to
pay a sum of ₹30,000/- towards initial
security deposit and to submit the set of
documents as specified in the email for
processing of his application for the
aforesaid award of retail outlet dealership.
Accordingly, the petitioner, made the
aforementioned payment of ₹30,000/- and
submitted the requisite documents.

4. Thereafter, the petitioner
received another E-mail from BPCLrespondent no.2 to upload Khasra/Khatuani
or
any
other
equivalent
document
confirming the status of his ownership of the
'land' as on the date of application in respect
of which the petitioner intends to open the
Retail Outlet Dealership Petrol Pump, as on
the date of application. However, on
17.12.2024, the petitioner received an Email from BPCL / respondent no. 3 through
which he was informed that the documents
uploaded by him were found 'NOT OK' as
the lease of the 'land' is executed by only
one of the co-owners of Khasra No. 110
which is not in consonance with the Clause
4 (vi) (a) of the 'Dealer Selection Guidelines
2023' and his candidature was found to be
ineligible.

5. Aggrieved by the cancelation of
his candidature, the petitioner approached
the BPCL/respondent No. 3 and posted his
representation through speed post and Email. However, vide E-mail/order dated
01.03.2024, his representation was rejected
by the Territory Manager (Retail) BPCL,
Gorakhpur /respondent no. 3 on the ground
that as per the 'Dealer Selection Guidelines,
2023', it is necessary that all the co-sharers
of the offered land must execute the lease in
favour of the petitioner. As the petitioner
does not have the lease from all the cosharers of the offered land, his candidature
is not acceptable.

6. Challenging the said order dated
01.03.2024, the learned counsel for the
petitioner argued that the land bearing
Plot/Gata No.110 situated at Mauza Agaya,
Tehsil Nichlaul, District Maharajganj,
belongs to one Pritihvi Pal Tiwari, who has
leased the same out of his individual share.
The portion of the land falling in the share
of Prithvi Pal Tiwari is adjacent to
petitioner's leased plot and in such scenario
there was no need to obtain consent from the
other co-sharers. It has further been argued
that as the petitioner has submitted a valid
lease deed along with the report by the
revenue authority prepared in pursuance of
the proceedings under section 116 of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Therefore, there
was no need of other co-sharer, who happen
to be the brother of Prithvi Pal Tiwari, to
execute lease of his share of land.
Furthermore, the co-sharers have no
objection with the present lease executed in
favour of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel
appearing for the BPCL vehemently
opposed the writ petition and submitted that
as per clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure for
'Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural
Retail Outlets 2023', in the case of the
petitioner, the lease deed should have been
executed by all the co-owners of the offered
plot. Since the lease deed produced by the
petitioner was not executed by all the co-
1796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
owners, his application has rightly been
cancelled. He has further submitted that
since the partition of the land in question is
said to have taken place on 10.02.2024,
which is subsequent to the date of
submission of application, i.e. 28.06.2023;
he was not found qualified for the allotment
of Retail Outlet Dealership.

8. Having heard the submissions made
by the learned counsels for the respective
parties and perusing the material available
on record, it would be apt to refer to Clause
4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure for 'Selection of
Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets
2023'. The relevant portion of the same is
extracted hereinbelow,

"......(vi) Land (Applicable to all
categories):

The applicants would be classified
into three groups as mentioned below based
on the land offered or land not offered by
them in the application form: -

Group
1:
Applicants
having
suitable piece of land in the advertised
location/area either by way of ownership /
long term lease for a period of minimum 19
years 11 months or as advertised by the
OMC.

Group - 2: Applicants having
Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for
purchase or long-term lease for a period
of minimum 19 years 11 months or as
advertised by the OMC.

Group-3: Applicants who have
not offered land in the application. Only
applicable for locations advertised under
SC/ST category.

Applications under Group - 3
would be processed/advised to offer land
(Annexure - D) only in case no eligible
applicant is found or no applicant get
selected under Group-1& Group-

2.In case land offered by all the
applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is
found
not
suitable/not
meeting
requirements, then these applicants under
Group 1 & Group2 along with applicants
under Group - 3 (who did not offer land
along with application) would be advised
by the OMCs to provide suitable land in
the advertised location / stretch, within a
period of 90 days from the date of issuance
of intimation letter to them through
SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to
provide
suitable
land
within
the
prescribed period, or the land provided is
found not meeting the laid down criteria,
the application would be rejected.

The
other
conditions
with
respect to offering of land are as under:

(a) The land should be available
with the applicant as on the date of
application and should have minimum
lease of 19 years and 11 months (as
advertised by respective oil company)
from the date or after the date of
advertisement but not later than the date
of application. If the offered land is on
Long-term lease and there are multiple
owners, then lease deed should be
executed by all co-owners of the offered
plot. In case lease deed is not executed by
all co- owners; such lease deed shall be
treated
as
invalid......."
(emphasis
supplied)

9. From the perusal of the records, it is
apparent that the petitioner did not have the
lease in his favour duly executed by all the
co-shareres of the offered land. It is relevant
to note that a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Rahul Singh versus Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd. and 3 others having
writ number as Writ C No. 7354 of 2024
observed that,
5 All. Aditya Vikram Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1797

"9. In view of the above, we find
that the Brochure stipulates amongst others
two contingencies (discussed here namely),
one where the land may be owned by a
person other than the applicant or his family
members, second, where the land may be
owned by the applicant alongwith others or
others alongwith his family members or
both. Considering the present facts land is
owned by third parties to the exclusion of the
applicant and his family members. That
situation is dealt with in terms of Clause 4
(vi) (a).

10. The situation were the land
may be owned by the applicant either in his
own name or alongwith his family members
and/or other persons has been dealt with in
Clause 4 (vi) (m) under situations 1, 2 and 3
dealt with in the tabular chart under the
heading "GROUP 1" appearing in that
Clause.

11. Then, without reference to
Clause (a), (m) or any Sub-Clause of Clause
4 (vi) of the Brochure, Note - 3 thereto only
provides- whereever consent letter is
required, it may be submitted on form
Appendix III.

12. As noted above, in the present
facts, the land offered in the allotment is not
owned by the petitioner/applicant or the
petitioner/applicant alongwith his family
members or by the petitioner/applicant
alongwith other owners and his family
members. Therefore, Clause 4 (vi) (m)
would not apply to the present facts.

13. On the contrary, the only
Clause applicable to such facts would be
Clause 4 (vi) (a). That Clause clearly
stipulates that the land offered for allotment
should be available to the applicant on the
date of submission of his application against
a long term lease executed by "all coowners". The consequence of non execution
of such lease deed is also provided in the
said Clause. Thus it has been stipulated, in
case such lease deed is not executed by all
co- owners, the same shall be invalid. Once
invalid that ineligibility attaches to the
application submitted by the petitioner on
the date of submission of his application.

14. For the purpose of application
of the said Clause the requirement remains-
execution of lease deed by all co-owners,
therefore, consent letters cannot fulfil that
stipulation. In face of the consequences of
invalidity of the lease deed having been
specified, there survives no occasion to
consider if the defect in such application
could ever been cured, after its submission.

15. Consequentially, the method
of curing the defect considered under Note3 (noted above) would remain confined to
the cases falling under Clause 4 (vi) (m),
only.

16. For the reasons noted above,
we conclude, the petitioner's case would
remain covered by Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Brochure. It is admitted that the lease deed
relied by the petitioner was not executed by
all co-owners before the date of submission
of the application. Therefore, there is no
error on the part of the respondent in
rejecting the application submitted by the
petitioner."

10. It is also relevant to observe
from 4 (vi)(a) of the said Brochure that the
offered land of the applicant must be leased
to him on the date of the application. In this
regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. versus Swapnil Singh reported in
2015 SCC OnLine SC 1922 has been
pleased to observe that,

".........We are unable to accept
this contention of learned counsel for the
respondent.
The
brochure
and
the
application
form
clearly
require
the
applicant to have a registered lease deed in
1798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her name. What is shown to us is a notarized
document and admittedly this document,
even though it may have been in existence,
was formalised into a lease agreement only
on 20th December, 2012 and that was
registered on 21st December, 2012. The
notarized document, therefore, does not
advance the case of the respondent any
further. Therefore, it is quite clear that the
respondent was not eligible on the date of
application, i.e., 13th September, 2011.
Under the circumstances, we allow these
appeals and set aside the order passed by
the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
Court. No costs........."

11. From all that has been narrated
hereinabove, it is clear that law on the issue
regarding the lease of the offered land is
well settled, i.e., for the successful
application
of
the
award
of
retail
dealership outlet, it is incumbent upon the
applicant that he/she must have a lease
deed duly executed by all the co-sharers of
the offered land on the date of the
application.

12. In view of the facts as narrated
hereinabove, it is abundantly clear that the
petitioner was not having the lease in
respect of the offered land in terms of
clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealership Selection
Guidelines, 2023 and as such, in the light
of the judgment rendered by this Court in
the case of Rahul Singh (Supra), he was
not eligible for being considered for the
allotment/award of the retail dealership
outlet. The impugned rejection of the
candidature of the applicant/petitioner
vide E-mail/order dated 01.03.2024 does
not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Therefore,
the
decision
of
BPCL/respondent no. 3 in rejecting the
candidature of the applicant/petitioner
needs no interference.

13. The writ petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

14. Parties shall bear their own costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1798
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 27068 of 2017

Jagdish ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Awadhesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law -order cancelling fair price shop
licence-under
challenge-alternative
statutory remedy under Section 13(3) of
The Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution
Control)
Order,
2016-adequate
opportunity of hearing given to the
petitioner-not availed by him- Petition
dismissed. (Paras 14 and 19)

HELD:

It has categorically been St.d in para 7 of the
counter affidavit that ins spite of giving repeated
opportunities, the petitioner did not submit any
reply / explanation or the records and this fact
remains uncontroverted, as the petitioner has not
filed any rejoinder affidavit. In view of the
aforesaid factual position, the allegation of the
petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was
provided to him is not acceptable. It appears that
adequate opportunity of hearing was provided to
the petitioner but the petitioner deliberately
failed to avail the same. (Para 14)