Patna High Court
Suman kumarversusThe Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- A ABHISHEK REDDY
Holding
The court held that the lease deed was not executed by all co‑owners as required by the dealer selection guidelines, and therefore the rejection of the application was valid.
Summary
The petitioner, Suman Kumar, applied for a retail outlet (RO) dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) after executing a lease deed with the sons of the original landowners. BPCL rejected his application, invoking Clause 4(vi)(a) of its Dealer Selection Brochure, which requires that a lease deed on long‑term lease be signed by all co‑owners of the land. The petitioner argued that the daughters of the original owners, who were married, were not required to sign and that the lease deed was valid. BPCL contended that under the Hindu Succession Act the daughters are co‑owners and their signatures were mandatory. The court examined the brochure’s wording, noted that the lease deed lacked the daughters’ signatures, and held that the rejection was in accordance with the stipulated guidelines. Consequently, the writ petition seeking certiorari and mandamus was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the rejection of the RO dealership application for lack of signatures of all co‑owners violates any statutory right of the petitioner.
- Whether Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealer Selection Brochure mandates that a lease deed be executed by all co‑owners, including daughters under the Hindu Succession Act.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari or mandamus directing BPCL to consider his application.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- RO dealership
- lease deed
- co‑ownership
- Dealer Selection Brochure
- certiorari
- mandamus
- Hindu Succession Act
- public procurement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2629 of 2025
======================================================
Suman kumar, Son of Uma Shankar Thakur, Resident of Village- Manguraha,
P.S.- Tajpur, District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Managing Director,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 12/E and F Maker Towers, Cuffe
Parade, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
2. The Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited 12/E and F
Maker Towers, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
3. The Head of Territory Office, Co-ordinator (Retail), Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Muzaffarpur.
5. The Assistant Manager Sales (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Muzaffarpur Territory, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prince Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Siddhartha Prasad, Adv.
For the Resp. No. 1 to 5 Mr. Amresh Kr. Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dineshwar Pd. Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL ORDER
11 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the
following relief(s):-
“(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature
of Certiorari, quashing the
communication bearing reference No.
BPC16953142793164 dated 24.12.2024,
whereby and whereunder, it has been
informed to the petitioner that his
application for Award of RO dealership
Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2025(11) dt.28-04-2026
2/7
at within 6 KM from DAV School, Kanti
towards Marwan on Kanti Marwan Road
District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar under OPEN
category Advertised on 28.06.2023, has
been found to be ineligible.
(b) For issuance of the writ in the nature
of Mandamus directing and commanding
upon the respondent authorities to
consider the application of petitioner for
Award of RO dealership at within at
within 6 KM from DAV School, Kanti
towards Marwan on Kanti Marwan Road
District- Muzaffarpur, Bihar under OPEN
category Advertised on 28.06.2023.
(c) For any other appropriate reliefs
which may be given to the petitioner
under the given facts of the case.”
3. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to
the advertisement issued by the Respondent-Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Ltd., the petitioner had made his application for RO
Dealership. That prior to the date of submitting his application,
the petitioner had entered into a lease deed with all the co-
owners of the land offered to the authority. However, the
authority without considering the lease deed, has rejected the
application made by the petitioner on a vague and legally
untenable ground.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2025(11) dt.28-04-2026
3/7
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the authorities have relied upon Clause 4
(vi)((a) of the Dealer Selection Brochure June 2023 and rejected
the application made by the petitioner on legally untenable and
non-existent ground. Learned counsel submits that as on the
date of execution of the lease deed, all the co-owners of the
property, i.e., the sons of the original owners, had executed the
lease deed. That the reason for rejection of the application is on
the ground that the other legal heirs of Late Harindra Prasad
Pandey and Late Anirudh Pandey have not signed the lease
deed. Learned counsel submits that all the legal heirs of the
above two mentioned original owners had signed the lease deed
and the daughters of the said two persons were not signatories to
the lease deed as they were married long back. Counsel submits
that subsequently also the land was mutated only in the names
of the sons of the original two owners, who are the lessors of the
leased land. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble
Court to set aside the impugned order and direct the authorities
to process the application made by the petitioner, duly taking
into consideration the fact that the lease deed dated 12.09.2023
is a valid lease deed and is in consonance with the guidelines
issued by the Respondent-Corporation.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2025(11) dt.28-04-2026
4/7
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent-BPCL submits that the guidelines issued by the
authority are clear and unambitious. That as per Clause 4(vi)(a)
of the Dealer Selection Brochure, June 2023, all co-owners of
the property should jointly sign the lease deed. However, in the
present case, the Vanshabali filed by the petitioner itself shows
that besides the sons, the two original owners are having
daughters and they have not signed the lease deed. Learned
counsel submits that the daughters also have property rights as
per the Hindu Succession Act and therefore, the authority was
well within its exercise in rejecting the application made by the
petitioner. Learned counsel has therefore prayed this Hon’ble
Court to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. Admittedly, in the present case, the advertisement
for establishment of a retail outlet of the Respondent-
Corporation for RO dealership was issued on 28.06.2023 and
the petitioner filed his application on 21.09.2023. That prior to
submitting his application, the petitioner had entered into a lease
deed with the sons of the original co-owners, namely, Late
Harindra Prasad Pandey and Late Anirudh Pandey.
7. In order to resolve the issue involved in the present
writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of
Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2025(11) dt.28-04-2026
5/7
the guidelines issued by the Respondent-Oil Corporation more
particularly, Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Dealer Selection Brochure
June 2023, which reads as under:-
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 applicant/s
under Group -1 & Group - 2 along with
Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2025(11) dt.28-04-2026
6/7
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 ; such lease deed shall
be treated as invalid.”
8. A perusal of the above makes it abundantly clear that
the land which is sought to be offered by the petitioner, if taken
on lease, should be signed by all the co-owners as on the date of
the application and it should be for a minimum lease of 19
years and 11 months. Admittedly, in this case, the lease deed
Patna High Court CWJC No.2629 of 2025(11) dt.28-04-2026
7/7
was not executed by the daughters of the above two persons,
namely, late Harindra Prasad Pandey and late Anirudh Pandey,
it was executed only by the sons. Irrespective of the fact as to
whether subsequently the offered land was mutated in the
names of only sons is of no consequences and it is to be noted
that the order of mutation is dated 28.03.2025.
9. Having regard to the same, this Court does not find
any merits in the present writ petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Bhardwaj/-
U
Checking your session…