# Veer Bahadur Singh v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 563
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 169 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/veer-bahadur-singh-v-hindustan-petroleum-corp-ltd-ors-53172
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar
Singh, Sri Nishant Mehrotra

Lease deed-Execution-The respondent was
chosen in draw of lots- with respect to location
no.1375- for retail outlet dealership- claim illegal
selection-as lease deed of offered leased
property was signed by only one of the coowners-other co-owners witnessed the leasethere
is
difference
between
executing
a
particular document and being a witness to the
same
document-co-owners
witnessing
a
particular document would not amount to
compliance of the Brochure that categorically
requires execution by all the co-ownersimpugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

## Text

4 All. Veer Bahadur Singh Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
563

9. The respondents are directed to
consider the reinstatement of the petitioner
as contract employee and pass appropriate
orders in the light of the circular dated 7th
March, 2019.

10. Appropriate order shall be passed
within a maximum period of one month
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 563
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 169 of 2025

Veer Bahadur Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, Sri Ashish Kumar
Singh, Sri Nishant Mehrotra

Lease deed-Execution-The respondent was
chosen in draw of lots- with respect to location
no.1375- for retail outlet dealership- claim illegal
selection-as lease deed of offered leased
property was signed by only one of the coowners-other co-owners witnessed the leasethere
is
difference
between
executing
a
particular document and being a witness to the
same
document-co-owners
witnessing
a
particular document would not amount to
compliance of the Brochure that categorically
requires execution by all the co-ownersimpugned order quashed.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

Cases Cited:

1. Poonam Verma & ors.Vs Delhi Development
Authority reported in (2007) 13 SCC 154

2. Rahul Singh Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & ors.,
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:40545-DB

3. Akshay Kumar Jaiswal Vs U.O.I. & ors.,
Neutral Citation No. -2024:AHC:107416-DB

4. Abrar Qureshi Vs U.O.I. & ors., Neutral
Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42480-DB

5. Rashmi Saroj Vs Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas through its secretary A Wing
Shashtri Bhawan & ors.,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties.

2. This is a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
wherein the petitioner is aggrieved by the
rejection of his complaint dated 24.01.2024
filed with the respondent no.2 with regard
to the illegal selection of the respondent
no.3.

3. The facts of the case are that the
respondent no.3 was chosen in draw of lots
with respect to location no.1375 for retail
outlet dealership. The main complaint of
the petitioner is that the respondent no.3
had offered a leased property which did not
comply with the mandatory provision laid
down under Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Brochure June, 2023 which reads as under:-

 "The
other
conditions
with
respect to offering of land are as under:-
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 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. Incase lease deed is not
executed by all co-owners' such lease deed
shall be treated as invalid."

4. Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that the lease deed
was signed by only one of the co-owners
while the other co-owners witnessed the
lease deed. His further argument is that two
lease deeds had been filed by the
respondent no.3 dated 24.7.2023 and
18.9.2023. He submits that the subsequent
deed was treated as the final lease deed. He
submits that the subsequent deed was not
an amendment of the first deed but was
treated as such by the respondent no.2.

5. Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.3 has submitted that the purpose of the
relevant clause is only to ensure no future
litigation between the parties. He submits
that since the other co-owners have signed
as witnesses to the lease deeds, they had in
effect concurred with the said lease deed,
and in a manner of speaking, acted as
confirming parties. He relies on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Poonam
Verma and others Vs. Delhi Development
Authority reported in (2007) 13 SCC 154
(paras 26 to 28 of the judgment).

6. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 has also
supported the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no.3 and submitted
that both the lease deeds that were provided
were dated before the cut off date, and
accordingly,
they
have
accepted
the
subsequent deed.

7. Upon consideration of the
submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the parties and upon
perusal of the materials on record, we are
unable to digest the reasoning provided by
the respondent no.2 while dealing with the
complaint filed by the petitioner. No
specific reason has been provided by the
respondent no.2 as to why the second lease
deed was to be accepted as the amended
lease deed. Secondly, the respondent no.2
has stated that the co-owners having
witnessed the lease deed would meet the
dealer selection guidelines.

8. First of all, there is merit in the
argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that when an earlier lease deed
was in existence, a second lease deed could
not have been executed without cancelling
the first lease deed. The second lease deed
in fact does not speak of any amendment
but is a fresh lease deed. This procedure by
itself appears to be incorrect and against the
principles established in law. Secondly,
Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the Brochure is a
mandatory provision and requires all the
co-owners to execute the lease deed.
Catena of judgments of this High Court
have held this particular clause to be
mandatory in nature. [See: Rahul Singh Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others,
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:40545DB, Akshay Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Union of
India and others, Neutral Citation No. -
2024:AHC:107416-DB, Abrar Qureshi Vs.
Union of India and others, Neutral Citation
No. - 2025:AHC:42480-DB and Rashmi
4 All. Satish Dhuriya Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
565
Saroj Vs. Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas through its secretary A
Wing Shashtri Bhawan and others, Neutral
Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69732DB]. The argument made by learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
respondent no.3 that other co-owners
have witnessed the lease deed, and
accordingly, had become confirming
parties, is an argument in sophistry and
is required to be rejected by us outright.
There is a huge difference between
executing a particular document and
being a witness to the same document.
The witness does not in any manner
agree to the terms and conditions in the
said lease deed while a person who
executes the document agrees to the
terms and conditions. In light of the
same, co-owners witnessing a particular
document
would
not
amount
to
compliance of Clause 4 (vi) (a) of the
Brochure that categorically requires
execution by all the co-owners.

9. The judgment cited by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent no.3 is in a different factual
background, and accordingly, does not
apply
to
the
present
facts
and
circumstances
where
the
terms
and
conditions are specifically provided in the
Brochure made available during the time of
advertisement.

10. With the above observations,
the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 is
quashed and set aside and the writ petition
is allowed. The authority is directed to
cancel
the
allotment
made
to
the
respondent no.3 and carry out fresh draw of
lots in accordance with law.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 565
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ - C No. 1380 of 2023

Satish Dhuriya ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hemant Kumar Mishra, Arti Ganguly

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Krishna Ram Yadav, Prahlad Singh

Civil Law -Petitioner was elected as Gram
Pradhan, a seat reserved for SC, based on
a caste certificate (dated 23.07.2015)
stating he belongs to the "Gond" (SC)
caste-A rival candidate who lost election,
obtained another caste certificate for the
petitioner
showing
his
caste
as
"Kahar"(OBC), and complained to the
District Magistrate to cancel the SC
certificate-The District Level Committee
canceled the petitioner's SC certificate
without referring the matter to vigilance,
declaring him OBC-Petitioner appealed to
the Divisional and then State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committees-The court found that
the Vigilance Report had confirmed the
petitioner's claim to SC status-As per the
Supreme
Court's
decision
in
Kumari
Madhurti Patil Vs. Addl. Commr., the State
Level
Committee
cannot
disregard
a
favorable Vigilance Report-The State Level
Committee overstepped its jurisdiction by
rejecting the petitioner's appeal despite a
favorable
Vigilance
Report-The
court
quashed the State Level Committee's
order rejecting the appeal and the District
Magistrate's
order
canceling
the
petitioner's election-Directed issuance of a
fresh caste certificate to the petitioner as
per
the
Vigilance
Report-Ordered
reinstatement of the petitioner as Gram
Pradhan based on his valid election-The