IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL
INDEX
IN
WRIT PETITION NO……….OF2018
(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

District ; Pauri Garhwal

Jai Singh Bisht

…….. Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & Ors

……….Respondents

Pages
Sl No. Particulars Nos.
1. Presentation
2. Index
3. Dates and events
4. Court Fee
5. Writ petition
6. Affidavit
7. Annexure no 1; . Copy of the Advertisement
dt. 17.12.2010 for selection of Retail Outlet
Dealers issued by the Respondent.
8. Annexure no 2; Copy of the Application dt.
27.01.2011 submitted by the Petitioner in
response to Annexure No. 1.
9. Annexure no3. Copy of the letter 13.12.2011
sent by the DRSM, Dehradun RO, IOCL to
produce documents to their Land Evaluation
Committee
10. Annexure no 4: Copies of the Registered
Lease Deed dt. 18.01.2011 and Registered Sale
Deed dt. 12.05.2005.
11. Annexue no 5: Copy of the Merit Panel dt.
16.03. 2012 displayed by the respondents after
the interview
12. Annexue no 6; copies of the letters .dt
02.04.2012, 03.04.2013 and 16.02.2013.
13. Annexue no 7; The copy of the letter dt
17.04.2013 from Respondent No. 1
18. Vakalatnama
19.

Dated...... June 2013 Navnish Negi,

Advocates
Counsel for the petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTRAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
DATES AND EVENTS
IN
WRIT PETITION NO …… OF 2018.

(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

District ; Pauri Garhwal

Jai Singh Bisht …….. Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & Ors
……..Respondents

Sl No. DATE EVENTS

1. 11/10/2014 Respondent no 2 issued the Advertisement
in order to select General Retail Outlet
Dealers for the site at Devi Road in
Uttarakhand
2. 17/10/2014 Respondent no 2 Subsequently issued the
similar Advertisement in order to select KSK
Retail Outlet Dealers for the site at Kotdwar
Bhabhar Road at District – Pauri Garhwal

3. Petitioner applied for Retail Outlet

Dealership at Village Balbhadrapur, B.E.L
Road, KOTDWAR , Dist. Pauri Garhwal
4. November petitioner made a Complaint against the
2016 eligibility of the Respondent no 4 for the
allotment at the Advertised site at Kotdwar
Bhabhar Road on the ground that the
proposed site of the respondent no 4 is
situated at Devi Road Kotdwar Garhwal and
not at Requisite Site at Kotdwar – Bhabhar
Road Pauri Garhwal .
4. 18/1/2017 Public works Department Duggadda Pauri
Garhwal in its fact finding Report dated
18/1/2017 fortifies the fact that the proposed
site of the Respondent no 4 is located at Devi
Road and not in the Kotdwar Bhabhar Motor
for which the aforesaid Retail dealership
advertisement dated 17/10/2014 was issued
which tantamount that the Candidature of the
Respondent no4 was wrongly considered by
the authorities to favor and to give undue
benefit to the respondent no 4.
5. 31/8/2017 Respondent authorities vide Impugned order
dated 31/8/2017 ignoring the revenue reports
and the reports of the Public works
department dismissed the complaint of the
petitioner in a absolute arbitrary , malafide
and illegal manner against the settled
 principles of Equity and Natural
Justice
6. Hence this petition.

Dated......June 2013 Navnish Negi,

Advocates
Counsel for the petitioner
IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTRAKHAND AT
NAINITAL

WRIT PETITION NO……….OF 2018

(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

District ; Pauri Garhwal

Jai Singh Bisht S/o Late Balwant Singh Bisht

Village – Padampur Sukhrow
Tehsil – Kotdwara , District –Pauri Garhwal
…….. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas &

Ors.

2. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd through The Chief Manager ( Retail Sales),

U.P. Sate Office-II, E-8, Sector – 1, NOIDA, U. P , 201301.

3. M/s Indian Oil Corporation through the Divisional Retail Sales Manager

(DRSM), Dehradun DO, 25, Nimbuwala, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

4. Arpit Kukreti S/o Subhash Mohan Kukreti

R/o – Village – Padampur Sukhrow

Tehsil – Kotdwara , District –Pauri Garhwal

…….. Respondents

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and his other companion judges of this Hon’ble
Court.

The humble petition on behalf of the petitioner most

respectfully showeth as ;

1. That this is the first writ petition filed by the petitioner and no such other petition

is filed or pending before this Hon’ble Court for the present cause of action.

2. That the present Petitioner before this Hon”ble Court by means of the present Writ

Petition is challenging the absolutely arbitrary, inequitable and unfair treatment

being meted out to him by the Respondents in conducting the process of Dealer
 selection in Gross violation of the rules of the dealer selection and in colourable

exercise of the power ,whereby respondents have ignored the norms & rules of

selection and have adopted a totally autocratic ,partisan and arbitrary approach in

the allotment of the dealership to Respondent no 4 which cannot stand by any

stretch of imagination , as such Should be Cancelled and to be allotted to the

petitioner as the Sole person eligible as per the requirement and advertised

notification .

3. That the Respondent no 3 vide its Advertisement dt 11/10/2014 the invited

applications for selection of Kisan Seva Kendra hereinafter called as KSK Rural

retail outlet dealers in various parts of Uttarakhand which includes one of the

locations namely Kotdwar – Bhabhar Road District Pauri Garhwal . A copy of

the Advertisement dated 11/10/2014 is being annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this

Writ Petition.

4. That in response to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner herein responded

and applied in the prescribed format for dealer selection for the location at

Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabhar Motor Road at Kotdwar District Pauri

Garhwal under Open Category. The copy of the application is being annexed as

Annexure No 2 to this writ petition.

5. That simultaneously the Office of Respondent no 3 vide its Advertisement dated

17/ 10/2014 invited the application for the General Retail dealership at Devi Road

Kotdwar Garhwal . In Pursuance of the afroresaid Advertisment Respondent no 4

did respond and applied for the allotment under the same category and for the

same location and site . True Copy of the advertisement dated 17/10/2014 is being

annexed as Annexure no 3 to this writ petition .

6. That the office of Respondent No.2 through its land evaluation committee

visited the Proposed site of the petitioner i.e Khasra no 81 Ka at Village –

Padampur Sukhrow , Simbhalchaur , Kotdwara – Bhabhar Motor Road and

found the proposed site of the petitioner on the notified location and rightly held

the petitioner’s Candidature for the allotment of the dealership at Kotdwar

Bhabhar Motor Road .

7. That simultaneously the proposed site of the Respondent no 4 situated at Khasra

no 256/1 Ka Village – Padampur Sukrow Tehsil Kotdwar Chilarkhal – Sikkadi

Kotdwar (Devi Road ) was evaluated by the land evaluation committee appointed

by the Respondent no 2 and was also found eligible for the aforesaid allotment .

8. That the petitioner made a Complaint dated 6/2/2017against the eligibility of the

Respondent no 4 for the allotment at the Advertised site at Padampur Sukrow

Kotdwar Bhabhar Road on the ground that the proposed site of the respondent no

4 is situated at Devi Road Kotdwar Garhwal and not at Requisite Site at Padampur

Sukrow Kotdwar – Bhabhar Road Pauri Garhwal . That taking note of the

complaint the Technical Report regarding the location of the proposed site of

both the petitioner and the respondent no 4 was sought by the Office of Public

works Department Duggada Pauri Garhwal . True Copy of the complaint dated

6/2/2017 is being annexed as Annexure no 4 to this writ petition

9. That the Public works Department Duggadda Pauri Garhwal in its fact finding

Report dated 18/1/2017 fortifies the fact that the proposed site of the Respondent

no 4 is located at Devi Road and not in the Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabhar

Motor for which the aforesaid Retail dealership advertisement dated 11/10/2014

was issued which tantamount that the Candidature of the Respondent no4 was

wrongly considered by the authorities to favor and to give undue benefit to the
 respondent no 4 . True Copy of the Report dated 18/01/2017 is being annexed as

Annexure no 5 to the writ petition .

10.That Surprisingly the authorities proceeded in a absolute arbitrary and illegal

manner in declaring the allotment of the Retail dealership in favor of respondent

no 4 by draw of lots ,on 29/12/2016 without even waiting for the Report sought

by the Same Authority of the location of the Proposed site of the Respondent no 4

and is therefore the selection under Challenge is liable to be quashed on this count

alone .

11.That the petitioner preferred a Complaint against the bias ,discrimination and the

malafide meted out to the petitioner in which the cognizance was taken by the

authorities , and the General Manager (Retail Sales ) was appointed as Enquiry

Officer who Sought the Revenue Records and Sazra (Revenue Maps ) of both the

proposed sites of the petitioner and respondent no 4 . The revenue Inspector in its

report dated 8/4/2017 categorically stated the fact that the proposed site khasra no

81 ka of the petitioner and Khasra no 256 of the respondent no 4 falls in the same

revenue Village Padampur Sukrow and meets at junction point called Simbhal

chaur which goes towards Bhabhar . True Copy of the revenue Report dated

8/4/2017 is being annexed as Annexure no 6 to this writ petition .

12.That the Respondent authorities vide Impugned order dated 31/8/2017 ignoring

the revenue reports and the reports of the Public works department dismissed the

complaint of the petitioner in a absolute arbitrary , malafide and illegal manner

against the settled principles of Equity and Natural Justice . True Copy of the

Impugned Order dated 31/8/2017 is being annexed as Annexure no 7to this writ

petition .
13.That the Impugned order dated 31/8/2017 has been passed on the pretext that the

proposed site of the respondent no 4 do heads and goes towards Bhabhar hence

could come within the advertised road namely Padampur Sukrow kotdwar

Bhabhar Motor Road which is Absolute misinterpretation of the fact and

erroneous finding of fact and is unsustainable in the eyes of law in as much as

both the Motor Roads namely Devi Road and Kotdwar Bhabar Road are two

distinct and different roads and two subsequent Advertisement one dated

17/10/2014 meant for the General outlet centre and Advertisement dated

11/10/2014 was meant for the Kisan Seve Kendra Retail outlet for the Rural

Kotdwar Bhabar Road .

14. That the petitioner herein made a representation dated 20/9/2017 to the

Department of Petrolium and Natural Gas , Union of India ,stating therein that

the allotment of the KSK Retail dealership in favor of the respondent no 4 is

absolutely illegal and arbitrary and has been allotted in fragrant misuse and

ignorance of the dealership guidelines of the Indian Oil corporation . The

Authorities were kind enough to take note of the issue in directing the Indian Oil

corporation to take necessary Action vide its letter dated 25/9/2017 . True Copy of

the letter dated 25/9/2017 issued by the Ministry of Oil And Natural Gas Union

of India is being annexed as Annexure no 8 to this writ petition .

15. That during the pendency of the aforesaid Complaint / Representation before the

Department of Oil And Natural Gas , the Indian Oil Corporation limited have

initiated the process to Install the Retail dealership Outlet at the proposed Site of

the Respondent no 4 which would prejudice the complaint filed by the petitioner

and would cause Irreparable loss and injury which would not be compensated in

terms of Money . It is most respectfully submitted that the allotment made has

been at the location Devi Road however the advertised location for the KSK
 Retail outlet was Kotdwar Bhabhar Road in which category the petitioner was the

sole eligible contendor and should be allotted therefore . True Copy of the KSK

Retail Outlet guidelines of Indian Oil Corporation ltd is being annexed as

Annexure no 9 to this writ petition .

16.That the petitioner respectfully states that in the circumstances petitioner is left

with no option but to approach under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter

alia on the following grounds.

GROUNDS

a.) Because Public works Department Duggadda Pauri Garhwal in its fact finding

Report dated 18/1/2017 fortifies the fact that the proposed site of the Respondent

no 4 is located at Devi Road and not in the Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabhar

Motor for which the aforesaid Retail dealership advertisement dated 11/10/2014

was issued which tantamount that the Candidature of the Respondent no4 was

wrongly considered by the authorities to favor and to give undue benefit to the

respondent no 4.

b.) The Respondent authorities vide Impugned order dated 31/8/2017 ignoring the

revenue reports and the reports of the Public works department dismissed the

complaint of the petitioner in a absolute arbitrary , malafide and illegal manner

against the settled principles of Equity and Natural Justice.

c.) Because Impugned order dated 31/8/2017 has been passed on the pretext that the

proposed site of the respondent no 4 do heads and goes towards Bhabhar hence

could come within the advertised road namely Padampur Sukrow kotdwar

Bhabhar Motor Road which is Absolute misinterpretation of the fact and

erroneous finding of fact and is unsustainable in the eyes of law in as much as

both the Motor Roads namely Devi Road and Kotdwar Bhabar Road are two

distinct and different roads and two subsequent Advertisement one dated
 17/10/2014 meant for the General outlet centre and Advertisement dated

11/10/2014 was meant for the Kisan Seve Kendra Retail outlet for the Rural

Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabar Road.

PRAYER

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be

pleased to;
I. Issue Writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari Quashing the

Impugned order dated 31/8/2017 Cancelling the Allotment KSK

Dealership in favor of Respondent no 4

II. Issue Writ , Order ,or direction in the nature of Mandamus to

Respondent no 2 to Allot the Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership for

Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabhar Road in pursuance of the

Advertisement dated 11/10/2014 .

III. Issue any other direction or order as this Honble Court may deem fit and

proper under the circumstances of the case .

IV. Award costs of the writ petition to the petitioner.

Dated......June 2013 Navnish Negi,VRK Prasad

Advocates
Counsel for the petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTRAKHAND AT NAINITAL

AFFIDAVIT
IN

WRIT PETITION NO……….OF2018

(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)

District ; Pauri Garhwal

Jai Singh Bisht …….. Petitioner

VERSUS
Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas & Ors

……..Respondents

Affidavit of Jai Singh Bisht S/o Late Balwant Singh Bisht

Aged about …….. Years Village – Padampur Sukhrow
Tehsil – Kotdwara , District –Pauri Garhwal

(DEPONENT )

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state on Oath as under;
1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the present writ petition and as such is fully
acquainted with the facts of the case deposed below.
That I, the deponent above named do hereby declare and verify that the contents of
paragraphs No. 1 of this affidavit and those of the contents of paragraph
No………………………………………of the accompanying writ petition are based
on personal knowledge received by the deponent and those of contents of paragraph
No……………of the accompanying writ petition are based on records and those of
contents of paragraph No …….of the accompanying writ petition are based on legal
advise and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed so far.
So help me God
…………Deponent

I, Navnish Negi , Advocate High Court of Uttrakhand do hereby declare that the
person making this affidavit and alleging himself to be the deponent is known to me
on the basis of the papers produced by him to me in this case and I am satisfied the he
is same person,
Advocate
Solemnly affirmed before on this the ……… day of ……….2013 at about
…..A.M/P.M by the deponent who is identified by the aforesaid person . I have
signed myself by examining the deponent that he understands the contents of this
affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me

OATH COMMISSIONER
 IN THE HON”BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTRAKHAND AT

NAINITAL

STAY APPLICATION NO……….OF 2018

IN

WRIT PETITION NO……….OF2018

(Under Article 226 of the constitution of India)
District ; Pauri Garhwal

Jai Singh Bisht S/o Late Balwant Singh Bisht

Village – Padampur Sukhrow
Tehsil – Kotdwara , District –Pauri Garhwal
…….. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas &

Ors.

2. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd through The Chief Manager ( Retail Sales),

U.P. Sate Office-II, E-8, Sector – 1, NOIDA, U. P , 201301.

3. M/s Indian Oil Corporation through the Divisional Retail Sales Manager

(DRSM), Dehradun DO, 25, Nimbuwala, Garhi Cantt, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

4. Arpit Kukreti S/o Subhash Mohan Kukreti

R/o – Village – Padampur Sukhrow

Tehsil – Kotdwara , District –Pauri Garhwal

…….. Respondents

To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and compani0n other judges of the High Court .

The humble application for interim relief on behalf of the petitioner most respectfully
showeth;

1. That in view of facts and circumstances stated in the accompanying petition ,it is

expedient that pending disposal of the writ petition , this Hon”ble Court may

graciously be pleased to stay the Processing and Installation of the allotment of

KSK Retail outlet at Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabhar Road till the pendency

of the petition otherwise the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury .

PRAYER

It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may

graciously be pleased to stay the Propcessing and Installation of the allotment

of KSK Retail outlet at Padampur Sukrow Kotdwar Bhabhar Road till the

pendency of the petition otherwise the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss

and injury .

Dated......September 2018 Navnish Negi,

Advocate
Counsel for the petitioner