Orissa High Court
Gyana Ranjan Behera vs Union Of India & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31306 of 2021
(In the matter of petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Gyana Ranjan Behera .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Union of India & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Siti Kant Mishra, Adv.
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Adv.
(for O.P. Nos.3 & 4)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
(for O.P. Nos.5 & 6
Mr. U.C. Pattnaik, Adv.
(for O.P. No.7)
Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 24.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner in the present petition challenges the action of Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 in selecting and awarding the dealership for a regular rural retail outlet (petrol pump) in favour of Opposite Party No. 7, allegedly in violation of the mandatory guidelines/rules framed in that regard.
Page 1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
2. Consequently, the petitioner prays that the dealership awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 7 for the location Athagarh to Karikol under the Athagarh Notified Area Council, operating in the name and style of "Maa Karikoliani Filling Station", be quashed. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 had floated an advertisement on 25.11.2018 in the local daily "The Samaja", inviting applications from intending candidates for award of RO dealerships at various locations in Odisha.
In the said advertisement, it was indicated that the details could be found on the official website.
(ii) The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. In terms of the advertisement, the petitioner procured the detailed brochure, which stipulates certain benefits for physically handicapped persons, and accordingly applied for the said dealership.
(iii) The application submitted by the petitioner for the dealership was duly accepted by Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4, and upon scrutiny of the application along with the documents filed, the petitioner was found eligible for the draw of lots for selection of RO dealership. The petitioner was accordingly informed, vide e-mail dated 22.01.2019, to appear personally on 04.02.2019 at OTDC Panthanivas, Bhubaneswar for the said purpose.
(iv) The petitioner appeared for the draw of lots as per the communication received. However, he was declared unsuccessful and Opposite Party No. 7 was awarded the RO dealership. It is submitted that the petitioner, Page 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 being eligible and qualified, had a bona fide expectation of being awarded the dealership, particularly as he had gathered reliable information that the application submitted by Opposite Party No. 7 was defective. Upon the award of dealership in favour of Opposite Party No. 7, the petitioner made further enquiry and found that the proposed site for the petrol pump, as indicated by Opposite Party No. 7, does not fall within the limits of the Athagarh NAC area. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.01.2021 to Opposite Party No. 5, apprising the detailed facts and requesting necessary action. Along with the said representation, the petitioner annexed a revenue map reflecting the Athagarh NAC area limits, a recent photograph of the site, and information obtained under the RTI Act from the JE-cum-Election In- Charge, Athagarh, indicating the boundary limits of Athagarh NAC.
(v) The petitioner further came to know that Opposite Party No. 7 is involved in a criminal case under Sections 144, 323, 307, 148 and 149 of the IPC vide G.R. Case No. 411(A) of 1997, which is pending before the Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No. 33 of 2017.
(vi) The petitioner, having no other speedy or efficacious remedy, has approached this Court.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioner submitted that Opposite Party No. 7, being involved in a criminal case and that the proposed site for the petrol pump does not fall Page 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 within the Athagarh NAC limits, ought to have had his application rejected outright in terms of the stipulations contained in the detailed brochure, and that Opposite Party No. 7 has been wrongly favoured by Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4.
(ii) It was further submitted that despite apprising the relevant facts to the authorities through Opposite Party No. 5, no action has been taken. The petitioner also submitted another representation dated 28.06.2021 to Opposite Party No. 4 regarding the involvement of Opposite Party No. 7 in the aforesaid criminal case, and copies thereof were served upon Opposite Party No. 5 and the Civil Supplies Officer along with other authorities, requesting action in the matter, but to no avail.
(iii) It was submitted that for obtaining a licence to sell High Speed Diesel at a petrol pump, the applicant, that is Opposite Party No. 7, is required to apply before Opposite Party No. 5, and only upon grant of such licence can the applicant undertake such sale. For this purpose, specific guidelines are prescribed, under which the applicant is required to furnish an affidavit stating that he is not involved in any criminal case.
(iv) It was submitted that the affidavit was sworn on 28.04.2021 at a time when the criminal case was pending, and the acquittal occurred only on 21.05.2022, thereby indicating that a false affidavit had been furnished.
(v) It was further submitted that there are discrepancies in the plot numbers relied upon by the parties, and the petitioner contends that the actual plot on which the retail outlet has been established does not fall within the Athagarh NAC limits.
Page 4 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
(vi) It was further submitted that Opposite Party No. 7, despite not having been granted a licence by Opposite Party No. 5, is illegally selling High Speed Diesel. In this regard, a receipt dated 21.09.2021 evidencing sale of diesel by Opposite Party No. 7 at "Maa Karikoliani Filling Station" has been relied upon.
(vii) The petitioner submitted that under the guise of a draw of lots, Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 have granted the dealership in a manner which is palpably illegal and arbitrary in view of the facts stated above. The petitioner, being a physically handicapped person, has fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for grant of such licence in his favour. It is further submitted that the petitioner had apprised Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 of these facts and requested cancellation of the licence granted to Opposite Party No. 7 by way of representations, but no action has been taken. On the other hand, Opposite Party No. 7 is stated to be selling High Speed Diesel without obtaining a licence from Opposite Party No. 5. Therefore, the licence granted to Opposite Party No. 7, being illegal, is liable to be quashed.
(viii) It was submitted that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 are required to adhere to their own guidelines and rules. However, in the present case, despite being aware that the petrol pump in the name and style of "Maa Karikoliani Filling Station", run by Opposite Party No. 7 over Plot No. 847/1219, Khata No. 349/204 under Mouza Bhitar Karikol, P.S. and Tahasil Athagarh, District Cuttack, is in clear violation of the said guidelines and rules, particularly with regard to the prescribed operational boundary area, the involvement of Opposite Party No. 7 in a Page 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 criminal case, and the alleged sale of High Speed Diesel without the requisite licence, the said authorities have remained silent. It is further submitted that by such inaction, the petitioner's right to trade has been infringed. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to intervene in the matter in the interest of justice.
(ix) If the reliefs prayed for are not granted, the petitioner shall be highly prejudiced and shall suffer irreparable loss.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions:
(i) It was submitted that the writ petition challenges the selection and award of the retail outlet dealership for the location "Athagarh to Karikol within Athagarh NAC limit" under the OBC category in favour of Opposite Party No. 7.
(ii) It was submitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 25.11.2018, applications were invited for retail outlet dealerships and the mode of selection was by draw of lots. The petitioner had applied under the OBC category and his candidature was considered accordingly.
(iii) It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 7 was selected through draw of lots and was issued Letter of Intent and thereafter a Letter of Appointment, and the retail outlet has been commissioned and is operating.
(iv) It was submitted that the allegation that the site does not fall within Athagarh NAC limits is incorrect. The Notified Area Council, Athagarh had confirmed that Mouza Bhitarkarikol falls within the NAC limits.
Page 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 The Land Evaluation Committee of the Corporation also inspected the land and found it to be within the advertised location.
(v) It was submitted that the Corporation acted on the basis of official records available at the relevant time and the petitioner's reliance on subsequent material is not tenable.
(vi) It was submitted that as per the brochure, disqualification arises only in case of conviction for offences involving moral turpitude or economic offences. Opposite Party No. 7 had submitted an affidavit stating that he has not been convicted of any such offence.
(vii) It was further submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case does not amount to disqualification. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No. 7 has been acquitted in the said criminal case.
(viii) It was submitted that the dealership was advertised under the OBC category and not under the physically handicapped category, and the petitioner had applied under the OBC category.
(ix) It was submitted that there is no illegality in the selection of Opposite Party No. 7 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONING
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.
7. Insofar as the contention relating to the location of the proposed site is concerned, it is an admitted position that the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 stipulated that the retail outlet was to be established within the limits of the Athagarh Notified Area Council. The petitioner contends that the actual site proposed by Opposite Party No. 7, being Page 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 Mouza Bhitar Karikol, falls outside the NAC limits, and in support thereof, has placed reliance upon a revenue map, a recent photograph of the site, and information received under the RTI Act from the JE-cum- Election In-Charge, Athagarh, delineating the boundary limits of Athagarh NAC.
8. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have categorically stated that the Notified Area Council, Athagarh had officially confirmed that Mouza Bhitarkarikol falls within the NAC limits. Furthermore, the Land Evaluation Committee of the Corporation, which is the expert body constituted for such purposes, conducted a physical inspection of the proposed site and concluded that the same is situated within the advertised location.
9. It is well settled that courts exercising writ jurisdiction are not expected to sit in appeal over the findings of expert bodies on matters involving technical or factual determinations, particularly when such findings are based on official records and personal inspection. The petitioner has not placed on record any authoritative notification, gazette, or order issued by the competent authority conclusively establishing that Mouza Bhitar Karikol falls outside the Athagarh NAC limits. The material relied upon by the petitioner, though having some probative value, does not possess the legal authority necessary to override the official confirmation issued by the Notified Area Council and the findings of the Land Evaluation Committee. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner on this score does not merit acceptance.
Page 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
10. Turning to the contention relating to the alleged criminal antecedents of Opposite Party No. 7, it is the submission of the petitioner that Opposite Party No. 7 was involved in G.R. Case No. 411(A) of 1997, which was pending as S.T. Case No. 33 of 2017 before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh, at the time of application and also at the time when the affidavit was sworn on 28.04.2021 before Opposite Party No. 5 for the purposes of obtaining a licence to sell High Speed Diesel. The petitioner submits that the said affidavit, in which Opposite Party No. 7 declared that he had not been convicted of any criminal offence, was false, inasmuch as the criminal case was admittedly pending at that time, and acquittal was obtained only on 21.05.2022.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that a careful reading of the relevant clause in the brochure issued by Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 is necessary for adjudicating this issue. The submission of the Opposite Parties, which finds support in the brochure, is that the disqualification stipulated therein is attracted only upon conviction for offences involving moral turpitude or economic offences, and not upon mere pendency of a criminal case. The distinction between pendency of a criminal proceeding and a conviction thereunder is well recognised in law. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as equivalent to a conviction. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that Opposite Party No. 7 was disqualified solely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case, particularly when the brochure does not so stipulate.
Page 9 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
12. Furthermore, the affidavit submitted by Opposite Party No. 7 on 28.04.2021 declared absence of conviction and not absence of involvement in pending proceedings, which was accurate at the time of its making. The subsequent acquittal on 21.05.2022 further reinforces the position that no conviction was ever recorded. In the circumstances, the contention that a false affidavit was furnished is not borne out from the record and is accordingly rejected.
13. The next contention relates to the alleged unlicensed sale of High Speed Diesel by Opposite Party No. 7. The petitioner has placed reliance on a receipt dated 21.09.2021, purportedly evidencing sale of diesel at "Maa Karikoliani Filling Station" prior to the grant of licence by Opposite Party No. 5. This Court is conscious of the serious nature of such an allegation. However, in the present proceedings, the primary challenge pertains to the validity of the selection and award of the dealership in favour of Opposite Party No. 7. The question as to whether Opposite Party No. 7 has been selling diesel without a valid licence is essentially a question of fact which requires examination by Opposite Party No. 5, being the competent licensing authority. This Court notes that the petitioner has already approached the concerned authorities in this regard. However, on the basis of a solitary receipt, the authenticity of which is disputed, this Court is not inclined to render any conclusive finding. The appropriate course for the petitioner is to pursue the matter before the said authority.
14. The petitioner has also raised a grievance regarding the category under which the dealership was advertised. It is not in dispute that the Page 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 dealership was advertised under the OBC category and that both the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 7 had applied under the said category. The petitioner's status as a physically handicapped person does not alter the nature of the category under which the dealership was advertised. No separate reservation for physically handicapped persons was provided for the said dealership, and therefore, the petitioner's claim on this ground is unsustainable.
15. It is further noted that the selection of Opposite Party No. 7 was effected through a draw of lots, which is a recognised mode of selection and is fair and non-discriminatory when all applicants are equally eligible. No material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the draw of lots was conducted in an arbitrary or unfair manner.
16. This Court is mindful that in matters of commercial dealerships, once a dealership has been awarded and is operational, interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted only in cases of manifest illegality. In the present case, no such illegality has been established.
17. However, since the petitioner has already submitted representations in this regard and the same remain pending, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the said representations dated 20.01.2021 and 28.06.2021 shall be considered by Opposite Party No. 5, being the competent licensing authority, within a period of three months from the date of this order, particularly with regard to the allegation of unlicensed sale of High Speed Diesel.
Page 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42 V. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition insofar as the prayer for quashing the dealership awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 7 is concerned.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merit insofar as the prayer for quashing is concerned, is disposed of with a direction to Opposite Party No. 5 to examine the petitioner's representations dated 20.01.2021 and 28.06.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In the event any illegality is found, the said authority shall take action in accordance with law.
20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 17th April, 2026 .
Page 12