# Shiv Prasad Gupta v. Hindustan Petroleum Corportation Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 270
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 52412 of 2016
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-prasad-gupta-v-hindustan-petroleum-corportation-ltd-ors-53666
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Komal Mehrotra, S.C., Vikas Budhwar

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
whether
order
dated
05.07.2016 passed by Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
Limited,
8 All. Shiv Prasad Gupta Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
271
Gorakhpur cancelling petitioner's letter of intent
for LPG distributorship was legally sustainable,
in view of allegation that, on date of submission
of application form, petitioner did not possess
requisite
extent
of
land
prescribed
in
advertisement and had failed to disclose coownership of said land with his father and
brothers, or whether such deficiency was
curable irregularity under Clauses 1.23 (C) and
16.4 of Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG
Distributorships, entitling petitioner to retention
of allotment.

Headnotes
Petitioner in pursuance of advertisement
dated 16.04.2012 issued by Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited for award
of
LPG
distributorship
submitted
his
application on 15.05.2012, offering land
bearing Gata No. 10, Khata No. 300 for
establishment of distributorship, asserting
himself as its sole owner - Upon selection
through lottery on 24.01.2013, a Letter of
Intent was issued in his favour on
28.02.2014 - Subsequently, on receipt of
complaint regarding ownership of offered
land, inquiry conducted by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate revealed that, on the date of
submission of application, petitioner was
only a co-sharer to the extent of 1/9 in
said plot, with the remaining shares held
by his father and brothers, from whom he
later acquired additional portions by sale
deed dated 09.02.2013, after the last date
of submission of applications - Treating
such
acquisition
as
post
facto
and
observing that petitioner had furnished
incorrect information by declaring sole
ownership, then Chief Regional Manager,
HPCL,
by
order
dated
05.07.2016,
cancelled Letter of Intent, leading to filing
of instant writ petition challenging the
said cancellation.
Held: In the instant case, petitioner neither
disclosed names of his father and brothers nor
submitted notarized affidavit as required under
Appendix C - Record shows that he purchased
the shares of his brothers, through a sale deed
dated 09.02.2013, executed after submission of
application form, and his name was thereafter
entered in revenue records - It is thus evident
that, on the date of application, offered land
was not owned by petitioner, and he became
eligible only after acquiring his family's shares -
Petitioner is bound by his undertaking and
affidavit affirming truthfulness of information
furnished - He failed to disclose ownership
details of property, amounting to concealment
of information in application form rather than a
mere deficiency in its submission - On the date
of application, petitioner did not possess the
requisite land or any alternate land for
establishing LPG distributorship, hence, Clause
16.4 of guidelines has no application - If
applicant fails to meet land criteria, alternative
land may be offered only during FVC process as
per Clause 16.4 - Petitioner neither disclosed the
date of FVC process nor pleaded possession of
compliant alternative land, hence, he cannot
claim benefit of Clause 16.4 - [Paras 24, 26, 31,
32 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Rahul Singh v. India Oil Corporation Ltd. and
Others passed in Writ-C No.7354 of 2024;
- distinguished

List of Acts
Nil

List of Keywords
Letter of Intent; Order dated 05.07.2016; LPG
Distributorship;
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
;
Advertisement / Corrigendum; Application Form;
Ownership of Property / Land Ownership;
Relationship with applicant; Declaration; Cosharer/ Co-owners; Inspection / Inquiry /
Report; Sale Deed / Mutation; Revenue records;
Prescribed Area / Required Land / Eligibility
Criteria; Cancellation / Withdraw / Terminate;
Clause 1.23 (sub-clause C); Clause 16.4 of
Guidelines; Unified Guidelines for Selection of
LPG
Distributorship;
Field
Verification
of
Credentials (FVC); Alternative Land ;Consent of
Family
Mem

## Text

270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
also
not
considered
that
in
similar
circumstances, the State Government itself
by an order dated 14.12.2018 has granted
permission contrary to the master plan
2021 to Kamlesh Garg on the ground that
prior to passing of master plan 2021, the
formalities for sanction of map were
completed, as such, change of land use in
master plan 2021 cannot be basis for
rejection of map.

30. The order of Vice Chairman
dated 22.11.2019 is contrary to law, as the
Vice Chairman while passing the aforesaid
order has proceeded on the basis of land
use in Master Plan 2021, whereas the
sanction of map of petitioner stands
revived, after setting aside the order dated
5.10.2012 and as the sanction was prior to
enforcement of Master Plan 2021, the order
passed
by
the
Vice-Chairman
dated
22.11.2019 is hereby quashed.

31. The order passed by the
respondent no. 1 under section 43(1) of
U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act,
1973
also
proceeded
on
the
presumption that the permission has to be
considered as the map was filed for
sanction after approval of Master Plan
2021, whereas the map of the petitioner
was sanctioned by letter dated 28.11.2006
as per the then use of land. The contention
of the respondents that no exchange as
provided under section 161 of The U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 was made, is contrary to the
own admission of the respondent in
paragraphs 30 & 33 of the counter
affidavit as well as contrary to the
Government Order dated 25.1.1996. Since
the order dated 28.11.2006 was revived
after setting aside of cancellation, the
order of respondent no. 1 dated 23.5.2023
is quashed.
32. As the order of cancellation of
map dated 5.10.2012 has already been set
aside by the order dated 08.07.2019 passed
by the Commissioner, the same is not
required to be quashed as it is a non-est
order.

33. The writ petition is allowed. A
Mandamus is issued to Respondent no.
2/Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development
Authority, Ghaziabad to release the map of
the petitioner from Group Housing which
has already been sanctioned vide letter
deted 28.11.2006 within a period of four
weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.

34. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 270
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ C No. 52412 of 2016

Shiv Prasad Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corportation Ltd. &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Akanksha Sharma, Manish Goyal (Senior
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Komal Mehrotra, S.C., Vikas Budhwar

Issue for Consideration
Matter
pertains
to
whether
order
dated
05.07.2016 passed by Chief Regional Manager,
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation
Limited,
8 All. Shiv Prasad Gupta Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
271
Gorakhpur cancelling petitioner's letter of intent
for LPG distributorship was legally sustainable,
in view of allegation that, on date of submission
of application form, petitioner did not possess
requisite
extent
of
land
prescribed
in
advertisement and had failed to disclose coownership of said land with his father and
brothers, or whether such deficiency was
curable irregularity under Clauses 1.23 (C) and
16.4 of Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG
Distributorships, entitling petitioner to retention
of allotment.

Headnotes
Petitioner in pursuance of advertisement
dated 16.04.2012 issued by Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Limited for award
of
LPG
distributorship
submitted
his
application on 15.05.2012, offering land
bearing Gata No. 10, Khata No. 300 for
establishment of distributorship, asserting
himself as its sole owner - Upon selection
through lottery on 24.01.2013, a Letter of
Intent was issued in his favour on
28.02.2014 - Subsequently, on receipt of
complaint regarding ownership of offered
land, inquiry conducted by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate revealed that, on the date of
submission of application, petitioner was
only a co-sharer to the extent of 1/9 in
said plot, with the remaining shares held
by his father and brothers, from whom he
later acquired additional portions by sale
deed dated 09.02.2013, after the last date
of submission of applications - Treating
such
acquisition
as
post
facto
and
observing that petitioner had furnished
incorrect information by declaring sole
ownership, then Chief Regional Manager,
HPCL,
by
order
dated
05.07.2016,
cancelled Letter of Intent, leading to filing
of instant writ petition challenging the
said cancellation.
Held: In the instant case, petitioner neither
disclosed names of his father and brothers nor
submitted notarized affidavit as required under
Appendix C - Record shows that he purchased
the shares of his brothers, through a sale deed
dated 09.02.2013, executed after submission of
application form, and his name was thereafter
entered in revenue records - It is thus evident
that, on the date of application, offered land
was not owned by petitioner, and he became
eligible only after acquiring his family's shares -
Petitioner is bound by his undertaking and
affidavit affirming truthfulness of information
furnished - He failed to disclose ownership
details of property, amounting to concealment
of information in application form rather than a
mere deficiency in its submission - On the date
of application, petitioner did not possess the
requisite land or any alternate land for
establishing LPG distributorship, hence, Clause
16.4 of guidelines has no application - If
applicant fails to meet land criteria, alternative
land may be offered only during FVC process as
per Clause 16.4 - Petitioner neither disclosed the
date of FVC process nor pleaded possession of
compliant alternative land, hence, he cannot
claim benefit of Clause 16.4 - [Paras 24, 26, 31,
32 ] (E-13)

Case Law Cited
Rahul Singh v. India Oil Corporation Ltd. and
Others passed in Writ-C No.7354 of 2024;
- distinguished

List of Acts
Nil

List of Keywords
Letter of Intent; Order dated 05.07.2016; LPG
Distributorship;
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
;
Advertisement / Corrigendum; Application Form;
Ownership of Property / Land Ownership;
Relationship with applicant; Declaration; Cosharer/ Co-owners; Inspection / Inquiry /
Report; Sale Deed / Mutation; Revenue records;
Prescribed Area / Required Land / Eligibility
Criteria; Cancellation / Withdraw / Terminate;
Clause 1.23 (sub-clause C); Clause 16.4 of
Guidelines; Unified Guidelines for Selection of
LPG
Distributorship;
Field
Verification
of
Credentials (FVC); Alternative Land ;Consent of
Family
Members/Family
Unit;
False
Disclosure/Concealment
of
Information;
Deficiency in Submitting the Application Form;
Eligibility Criteria Not Fulfilled / Non-fulfilment of
Condition;
Undertaking
/
Averments
/
Information
Found
Untrue
or
Incorrect;
Withdraw the Letter of Intent or Terminate the
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Distributorship; Concealment of Information; No
Alternative Land Offered / Alternative Land to
be Considered; Benefit of Clause 16.4 Not
Attracted; / FVC Process / Eligibility Verification;
Bound
by
the
Declaration
/
Bound
by
Undertaking.

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ - C No. -
52412 of 2016

From the Order dated 05.07.2016 passed by
Chief Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Gorakhpur

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Akanksha Sharma, Manish Goyal

Adv. for the Respondent:
Komal Mehrotra, S.C., Vikas Budhwar
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.
&
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Anjali Gokhlani, learned
counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Komal
Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents.

2. The petitioner, by means of the
present writ petition, has assailed the order
dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Chief
Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Gorakhpur, whereby
the letter of intent issued to the petitioner
with respect to the distribution of LPG
Cylinders has been cancelled.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
advertisement
for
setting
up
LPG
distributorship
was
published
by
respondent no.2 on 16.04.2012. The
petitioner, in pursuance of the said
advertisement, submitted an application in
the prescribed form on 15.05.2012 with
respect
to
the
Village
Chaf
Jungle
Visnnupura,
Chhapra,
District
Kushi
Nagar. As per the advertisement, the
petitioner was supposed to have a plot of an
area of 20M. X 24M. The petitioner, in
respect to the details of property in the
column of 'ownership' stated his name, and
in the column of 'relationship with the
applicant', he stated 'self'. The petitioner,
along with the form, submitted a Khatauni
in respect to Gata No.10, Khata No.300
situated in Village Chaf Jungle Visnnupura,
Chhapra, District Kushi Nagar. The lottery
with respect to the aforesaid centre for
distribution of LPG Cylinder was done on
24.01.2013, in which the petitioner got
selected, and accordingly, a letter of intent
was issued to the petitioner on 28.02.2014.

4. It appears that a complaint was
lodged against the petitioner with regard to
the ownership of the plot on which the LPG
distributorship was to be established.
Accordingly, respondent no.2 got an
inspection/inquiry
done
by
the
SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tamkuhi Raj,
District Kushi Nagar, in respect to the
complaint. The report of Sub-Divisional
Magistrate dated 22.10.2014 stated that the
name of the petitioner is recorded in Gata
No.10 Khata No.300, having an area of
0.352 hectares as a co-sharer since before
07.03.2013. The petitioner's share in the
said plot is 1/9, i.e., 0.039 hectare. The
report further stated that Pramod and Sunil,
who are the brothers of the petitioner,
executed a sale deed in favour of Shivji on
09.02.2013 in respect to their share in Arazi
No.10 to the extent of 0.073 hectare, and
the name of the petitioner has been
recorded
in
the
revenue
record
on
07.03.2013.

5. On the strength of the aforesaid
report, the respondent no.2 passed an order
dated 05.07.2016 stating therein that on the
8 All. Shiv Prasad Gupta Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
273
date of submission of application for
establishment of LPG godown, the share of
the petitioner in the plot was 390 square
meter whereas the required area for setting
up the LPG godown was 480 square meter,
and since the petitioner has purchased the
additional land of 730 square meter on
09.02.2013 after the submission of the
application, therefore, the petitioner has
submitted fabricated document, and as the
petitioner has violated Clause 14 and
Clause 8 of the form, therefore, his letter of
intent
deserves
to
be
cancelled.
Consequently, the letter of intent of the
petitioner
was
cancelled,
which
is
impugned in the present writ petition.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed by
the respondents contending inter alia that, as per
Clause 13 of the selection guidelines, the
committee comprising two officers of the
respondent company is to scrutinize the
application of the petitioner for the award of
marks on the basis of the information given in
the application form. It is further stated that on
conduction of field verification of credentials of
the candidate if it is found that there is no
variance in the information given in the
application form vis-a-vis the actual physical
verification then the letter of intent is issued in
favour of the candidate, and if the variation is
found in the information given in the appendix
form vis-a-vis the field verification then the
candidature of the candidate is rejected and the
security amount is forfeited.

7. It is further alleged that the petitioner
intentionally
misled
the
respondent
corporation inasmuch as he did not have an
adequate piece of land on the last date of
submission of the application form.

8. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder
affidavit denying the averments made in
the counter affidavit.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
while challenging the impugned order, has
submitted that the letter of intent was
issued on 28.02.2014, and before the
issuance of the letter of intent, the
petitioner owned the required area of plot
needed
for
the
setup
of
LPG
distributorship. Accordingly, she submits
that the defect in the application form wth
regard to not complying with the condition
of having the required land stipulated in the
advertisement was curable and not a fatal
defect on the basis of which letter of intent
of the petitioner could be cancelled.

10. She further submits that even
otherwise, as per sub-Clause C of Clause
1.23 of unified guidelines for selection of
LPG distributorship, the land on which, the
distributorship was to be set up was owned
by the petitioner alongwith his father and
two brothers, and if their share is included
with the share of the petitioner, the
petitioner was having the required land as
per the advertisement for setting up the
LPG distributorship.

11. She further contends that it is
undisputed that the land on which the LPG
distributorship was to be set up was also owned
by his father and two brothers and in such an
event, the case of the petitioner is covered under
sub-Clause C of Clause 1.23 of guidelines and
the petitioner was to submit the consent in the
form of declaration from the family members
on the last date of submission of application as
specified either in the advertisement or
corrigendum. She
submits
that
in
the
declaration form, the family members were not
disclosed with the application form at the time
of submission of the application form, but that
is a curable defect, and thus, she submits that
the respondents ought to have considered this
aspect of the matter while passing the impugned
order.
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. She has further placed reliance
upon Clause 16.4 of the guidelines to
contend that it is also provided in the
guidelines that during the Field Verification
of
Credentials
(FVC)
in
case
land
mentioned by the applicant for godown or
showroom in his application is found not
meeting
the
eligibility
conditions/requirements as stipulated in the
advertisement/brochure/application
form
and if the applicant is having any alternate
land in his name or members of his family
as per the definition of family unit for land
of the applicant with date of registration on
or before the last date for submission of
application as specified either in the
advertisement or corrigendum (if any), the
same can also be considered.

13. On the strength of the aforesaid
clause, she submits that petitioner has
acquired the title of the land in respect to
the required area during the FVC and
Clause 16.4 should be given a liberal
interpretation in a sense that if the
ownership in respect to the alternative land
can be considered then the respondent can
also consider the acquisition of title in
respect
of
land
over
which
the
establishment of LPG distributorship is
proposed. She has also placed reliance
upon the judgement of this Court in the
case of Rahul Singh Vs. India Oil
Corporation Ltd. and Others passed in
Writ-C No.7354 of 2024.

14. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents would contend that in the
instant case, it is not disputed that the land
over which the LPG distributorship was to
be established was owned by the petitioner,
his father and two brothers and after
including the share of the petitioner, his
father and two brothers, the condition of
requirement of land as provided in the
advertisement is fulfilled. It is contended
that in the form, there is a specific column
with respect to the ownership of the
property
and
relationship
with
the
applicant, and in the column of 'ownership',
the petitioner has stated his name, and in
the column of 'relationship with the
applicant', the petitioner has stated 'self'.

15. He has further submitted that it is
evident from the application form that, in
case the land belongs to a member of the
family unit, a notarized affidavit as per
Appendix C has to be filed. He submits that
in the instant case, admittedly, a notarized
affidavit as per Appendix C of the members
of the family unit was not filed. He further
submits that the petitioner did not correctly
disclose the ownership of the property over
which he wanted to set up the LPG
distributorship, inasmuch as on the date of
submission of the application form, the
required land, which was needed for setting
up
the
LPG
distributorship,
was
20M.X24M. Whereas the share of the
petitioner was less than the required area,
and only after the inclusion of the share of
the father and two brothers of the
petitioner, the petitioner could meet the
requirement of having the required land as
provided in the advertisement for the
establishment
of
LPG
distributorship.
Accordingly, he submits that in such an
event, it was incumbent upon the petitioner
to have disclosed the name of all the
persons who owned the property, whereas
the petitioner has concealed this fact.

16. He further submits that the
petitioner is bound by the declaration given
in the advertisement with regard to the
declaration of fact in the application form
and also he is bound by the affidavit
submitted by him in the form of AppendixA referred in Clause-A, and since, it is a
8 All. Shiv Prasad Gupta Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
275
case
of
non-disclosure
of
correct
information, therefore, it is a case of
deficiency in submitting the form and
authority has not committed any error in
law in rejecting the application form.

17. He further submits that the reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner
over
Clause
16.4
of
the
guidelines is misplaced inasmuch as the
said clause is applicable where it was found
during the FVC process that if the land
which was offered by the petitioner does
not meet the eligibility condition or
requirement
as
stipulated
in
the
advertisement and if the applicant has
alternative land in his name or members of
the family unit as per the definition of
family unit for land of the applicant with
the date of registration on or before the last
date for submission of application as
specified
either
in
advertisement
or
corrigendum (if any), the same can be
considered.

18. He submits that the instant case is
a case of false disclosure of information
and not a case where the land offered for
the establishment of LPG distributorship
did not meet the criteria of the minimum
requirement of land stipulated in the
advertisement, nor did the petitioner have
any alternative land which he could offer in
place of the land provided by him.

19. He further submits that the Clause
16.4 would attract only during the FVC
process and there is no pleading in the writ
petition that during the FVC process the
petitioner has provided any alternative land in
place of the land which he offered for setting
up LPG distributorship complying with the
requirement of Clause 16.4 of the guidelines
and in the absence of any pleading to this
effect the said argument cannot be pressed
during the course of hearing as the
respondents are not in a position to reply the
factual assertions not pleaded in the writ
petition
during
course
of
argument.
Accordingly, he submits that the writ petition
lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

20. We have considered the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

21. The undisputed facts which are
borne out from the record are that the
petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement
dated 16.04.2012, submitted an application
on 15.05.2012. The petitioner offered the
land, i.e., Gata No.10, Khata No.300, situated
in Village Chaf Jungle Visnnupura, Chhapra,
District Kushi Nagar, for the establishment of
LPG distributorship. From the khatauni
enclosed with the writ petition, it is
evident that the area of the said Gata is
0.352 hectares, and there are several coowners of the said Gata. The petitioner's
share in the said Gata is 1/9, and the
petitioner on his own did not have
sufficient land as per the stipulation in the
advertisement and only after the inclusion
of the share of brothers and father of
petitioner, the petitioner could fulfil the
eligibility criteria in respect of land
needed for the establishment of LPG
distributorship as per the stipulation in the
advertisement.

22. At this point, it is relevant to
reproduce the relevant column of the
application form, which required the
petitioner to fill in the details of ownership
of property:

Provide the following details. In
case land belongs to member of Family
Unit, attach notorised affidavit as per
Appendix-D
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nam
e(s)
of
the
owne
r
of
land
Relatio
nship
with
applica
nt

Date of
registra
tion of
sale
deed/gi
ft/date
of
mutatio
n
Add
ress
of
the
loca
tion
of
the
land
for
LP
G
god
own
Khasr
a
No/S
urvey
No

Dimensions
of land

SHI
V
PRA
SAD
SELF
5.2.200
0
GO
SAI
PA
TTI
10+5
2
Len
gth
in
met
re
Bre
adth
in
met
re
35
25

23. The petitioner in the aforesaid
column has filled his name as owner of the
property offered by him for the proposed
LPG distributorship, and in the column
'relationship with the applicant', he stated
'self'. It is also one of the stipulation in the
advertisement that in case the land belongs
to the family unit or land is owned by the
petitioner along with his father or brother
or sister as provided in Clause 1.24 of the
guidelines, a consent in the form of
declaration from the family members was
required on the last date of submission of
application
as
specified
in
the
advertisement/corrigendum (if any).

24. Admittedly, in the instant case, the
petitioner did not disclose the name of his
father and brothers, nor enclosed the
notarized affidavit as per Appendix C. It
has also come on record that the petitioner
purchased the share of his two brothers,
namely Pramod and Sunil, by a sale deed
dated
09.02.2013,
much
after
the
submission of the application form, and
thereafter, his name was recorded in the
revenue records. So it is evident from the
aforesaid fact that on the date of
submission of the application form, the
land which was offered by the petitioner for
the establishment of LPG distributorship
was not owned by the petitioner, and it is
only after the inclusion of the share of his
brothers and father that the petitioner
fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the
required land.

25. In such view of the fact, it was the
duty of the petitioner to have disclosed
correctly the details of the owners of the
property and should have also disclosed
correctly the relationship with the other coowners in the application form. There is a
declaration given by the petitioner in the
application form that the information
provided in the application form is true and
correct. The petitioner was also supposed to
give an affidavit in Appendix A stating that
the information given in the form is correct.
Paragraph 8 of the affidavit provides that a
candidate has also to state in the affidavit
that if any information/declaration given by
him in the application or any document
submitted by the candidate in support of
application are found to be untrue or
incorrect or false, the respondent would be
within its right to withdraw the letter of
intent or terminate the LPG distributorship
(if already appointed) and the candidate
would have no claim, whatsoever, against
the corporation for such withdrawal or
termination. Para 8 of the affidavit in the
form Appendix-A is reproduced below:

"That
if
any
information/declaration given by me in my
application or in any document submitted
by me in support of application for the
award of the RGGLV or in this affidavit
shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or
false, the Indian Oil Corporation/Bharat
Petroleum
Corporation/Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation would be within its
rights
to
withdraw
the
letter
of
8 All. Shiv Prasad Gupta Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
277
intent/terminate
the
distributorship
(if
already appointed) and that I would have
no
claim,
whatsoever,
against
the
Corporation
for
such
withdrawal/termination."

26. Thus, the petitioner is bound by
the undertaking and averments made by
him in the affidavit that the information
given by him in the form is true and
correct, and there is no concealment. In the
instant case, admittedly, the petitioner has
not given the details of the owners of the
property in the application form, and in
view of the aforesaid fact, it is a case of
concealment
of
information
while
submitting the application form and not a
case of deficiency in submitting the
application form.

27. So far as the argument of learned
counsel for the petitioner that in the instant
case, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit
of sub-Clause C of Clause 1.23 of the
guidelines is concerned, we may note that
the said clause could help the petitioner
only if the petitioner had disclosed the
correct information in the form. Even as
per sub-Clause C of Clause 1.23 of the
guidelines, the other owners had to submit
a consent in the form of declaration from
the family members on the date of
submission of the application as specified
either in the advertisement or corrigendum
(if any).

28. In the instant case, admittedly, no
consent in the form of declaration of the
father and brothers of the petitioner was
enclosed along with the application form,
and therefore, in such view of the fact, this
clause also does not help the petitioner.

29. So far as the reliance placed by the
petitioner on Clause 16.4 of the guidelines
is concerned, the same is reproduced herein
below:

"During the FVC process, in case
land mentioned by the applicant for
godown/showroom in his application is
found
not
meeting
the
eligibility
conditions/requirements as stipulated in the
advertisement/brochure/application
form
and if the applicant is having any alternate
land in his name/member(s) of the family
unit as per the definition of family unit for
land of the applicant with date of
registration on or before the last date for
submission of application as specified
either in the advertisement or corrigendum
(if any), the same can be considered.
However, the same if considered has to be
duly verified for its suitability during the
FVC. In case at the time of FVC, it is found
that
the
all-weather
motorable
road
providing access to the Godown land is not
available or if the candidate expresses
his/her inability to ever provide the same,
the candidate can offer an alternate land
meeting
the
eligibility
criteria.
Such
alternate land, if considered, has to be duly
verified during the FVC for its suitability
for providing LPG godown and showroom
facility as mentioned hereinabove."

30. The perusal of the aforesaid clause
discloses that this clause applies only when
during the FVC process, in case land
mentioned by the applicant for godown or
showroom does not meet the eligibility
condition/requirement as stipulated in the
advertisement/application
form/brochure
and if the applicant has any alternative land
in his name or in the name of family
members then the same can be considered.

31. In the instant case, on the date of
submission of the application form, the
applicant did not fulfil the criteria of land
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
required for the purpose of establishment of
LPG distributorship and applicant did not
have any alternative land for establishment
which he could offer for establishment of
LPG distributorship therefore, the Clause
16.4 of the guidelines is not attracted in the
present case.

32. In case the applicant did not fulfil
the criteria of land for the establishment of
a Government showroom, it is only during
the FVC process that he could offer an
alternative land which meets the criteria
mentioned in Clause 16.4. In the instant
case, the petitioner has not disclosed the
date of the FVC process nor has stated that
he has an alternative land meeting the
criteria provided in Clause 16.4 of the
guidelines. In the absence of any such
pleading in the writ petition, the petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of Clause 16.4 of
the guidelines.

33. So far as argument of petitioner
that
Clause
16.4
be
given
liberal
interpretation is concerned, we find that
said argument in the facts of present case is
fallacious and lacks merit for the reason
that petitioner has not disclosed in the writ
petition the date of FVC process, and
further on the date of FVC process, he
fulfilled the land criteria as stipulated in the
Guidelines. In the absence of any such
pleading in the writ petition, no positive
finding can be returned regarding the
entitlement of the petitioner in respect to
the benefit of Clause 16.4 of the guidelines.

34. So far as the judgment relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner in
the case of Rahul Singh (supra) is
concerned, the same is not applicable in the
facts of the present case inasmuch as the
said judgment has been rendered on the
basis of the guidelines issued in the year
2023 whereas the petitioner will be
governed by the guidelines applicable on
the date of application of petitioner,
therefore, the said judgment does not come
to the rescue of the petitioner.

35. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition is dismissed with no order
as to cost.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 278
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ Tax No. 3608 of 2025

Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mohit Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Gaurav Mahajan, Saumitra
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable
against an order under Section 74 of the CGST
Act, 2017, after expiry of the statutory appeal
period prescribed under Section 107.

Headnotes
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
- SS. 74, 107, and 169 - Limitation for
Appeal - Maintainability - Delay in filing
statutory appeal - Condonation of delay
beyond prescribed period - Service of the
order by registered email is a valid service
and the date on which such service is
made would count as the date for the
purpose of limitation - S. 107(4) of the