Telangana High Court
The Territory Manager Bpcl (Retail) vs The Union Of India on 6 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.218 of 2026
DATE: 06.04.2026
Between:
The Territory Manager, BPCL (Retail),
Nizamabad (Retail) Territory and another
....Appellants
And
Union of India and 2 others
....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Aruva Raghu Mahadev, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Rajkumar Pulipaka, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, assails the interim order dated 31.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.40512 of 2025. By the said order, the learned Single Judge directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the operation and management of the Vemulawada Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) Retail Outlet. 2
3. The appellants herein were the respondents in the underlying writ petition, and the 2nd respondent herein was the writ petitioner. Factual matrix (in brief)
4. The 2nd respondent (writ petitioner) was initially engaged as a Service Provider for COCO Retail Outlet of the appellant Corporation situated at Vemulawada, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana, pursuant to a Letter of Intent dated 10.12.2022, followed by a Letter of Appointment dated 23.12.2022. In terms thereof, the 2nd respondent commenced operations w.e.f., 01.01.2023.
5. The engagement was for a fixed tenure of three (3) years commencing from 01.01.2023 and ending on 31.12.2025. Clause 1 of the said Letter of Appointment specifically provided that the contract shall remain in force for a period of three years and that any renewal and/or extension thereof shall be solely at the discretion of the appellant Corporation and subject to such terms as may be deemed fit.
6. In compliance with the contractual conditions, the 2nd respondent furnished a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakhs only), valid up to 21.06.2026.
7. Upon the impending expiry of the said contractual tenure on 31.12.2025, the appellant Corporation issued a fresh advertisement dated 12.07.2025 inviting applications for engagement of a Service 3 Provider for the very same outlet at Vemulawada, following the guidelines dated 15.12.2023.
8. The 2nd respondent, being desirous of continuing as Service Provider, submitted his application. The selection process, was based on four distinct parameters, viz., Age (25 marks), Educational Qualification (25 marks), Financial Capability (30 marks), and Personal Interview (20 marks) aggregating to a total of 100 marks.
9. Upon completion of the selection process, the Provisional Merit Panel was published on 12.11.2025, which showed the 2nd respondent secured an aggregate score of 75.56 marks. In contrast, the successful candidate, namely Mr. Kolugoori Madhu, secured 94.67 marks and was placed at Rank No.1. Consequently, the appellant Corporation issued a Letter of Intent dated 19.12.2025 in favour of the said selected candidate for engagement as Service Provider.
10. Aggrieved by his non-selection, the 2nd respondent invoked the grievance redressal mechanism provided under Clause 19 of the applicable brochure/guidelines by submitting a representation dated 28.11.2025, inter alia contending that his age had not been properly reckoned, and his financial capability had not been fully assessed by taking into account the subsisting Bank Guarantee. The said representation is extracted hereunder:
4
Date of submission : 28-11-2025 To The Territory Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Nizamabad Retail Territory Subject: Representation under Clause 19 - Request for Re-evaluation of Marks for COCO Selection (BP Vemulawada) held on 12-11-2025 Respected Sir, I, Mushikam Ranjeeth Kumar, presently serving as the Service Provider at BP Vemulawada COCO Outlet, submit this representation with deep respect, sincerity, and full trust in BPCL's fair evaluation process.
1. Request for Correction of Age Category Marks As per my Date of Birth 30-11-1989, my age clearly falls under the "Below 35 Years" category as on the selection date 12-11-2025. This factual classification is fully supported by documentary proof submitted earlier. I humbly request a correction of marks strictly in accordance with the guidelines.
2. Financial Capability - Fully Proven and Active I have an active and running 29,00,000 Bank Guarantee backed by my Fixed Deposit, which remains fully valid with BPCL up to 21-06-2026.
This itself is more than two-and-a-half times the required Bank Guarantee of 12,00,000.
To further demonstrate my strong financial eligibility, I have also submitted my 28,00,000 bank statement from my Savings Account. These two documents together establish complete financial capability and readiness well above BPCL requirements.
3. Performance Track Record • Improved sales from 90 KL to 130 KL through diligence and consistent customer service.
• Recognised as one of the best SBI redemption performers in rural areas with 4-5 lakhs monthly and 45-60 lakhs annually. • Maintained 365 days of uninterrupted service with regular engine oil changes and 100-150 litres monthly oil sales. • Ensured fully uniformed staff, discipline, and complete operational compliance.
Attachments Submitted:
- Aadhaar Card (DOB Proof)
- Active 29,00,000 Bank Guarantee + FD documents Relief Requested:
- Re-evaluation of Age Category marks
- Correction of Financial Capability marks
- Clarification of scoring methodology
- Rectification of marks based on verified documents Sir, this appeal is extremely important for my livelihood, my family, and my continued service to BPCL. I sincerely request your affirmative 5 and positive action with full confidence in BPCL's transparent and just system.
Respectfully submitted, (Signed) Mushikam Ranjeeth Kumar BP Vemulawada COCO Mobile: +91 9849099993
11. The said representation was rejected by a reasoned communication dated 04.12.2025. The said rejection is extracted hereunder:
Ref: NRT/COCO/BP-VEMULAWADA/COMPLAINT-01 Date:04.12.2025 To, Mr.Mushikam Ranjeeth Kumar, H No: 1-52-114/1/A, Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla District, Telangana - 505302 Ph No:9849099993.
Dear Sir, Sub: Contract for Service Provider at COCO RO location M/s.BP Vemulawada District RAJANNA SIRICILLA. We write with reference to your letter ref. NIL dated 28.11.2025 on the above subject.
We have carried out investigation into the grievance/complaints/allegations mentioned in your aforesaid letter and our comments are as under (the letter should be a speaking order referring to each allegation made in the complaint by the complainant):-
1. Request for correction of Age Category Marks Age Criteria As per Aadhar Card your Date of Birth is 30/11/1989 Please refer Brochure for Selection of Service Provider for COCOs dated 15/12/2023.
Point 5: Selection Criteria and Guidelines for Evaluation:
i. Age (completed years) • For age 21 years to 35 years - 25 marks • For age above 35 years to 50 years-21 marks • For age above 50 years to 60 years-17 marks Also Please refer Point 2 Eligibility Criteria • Applicant should meet all eligibility criteria as on the date of application.
Calculation of Marks:
Date of Application is 11-08-2025. Your Date of Birth is 30-11-1989.6
Your age as on date of application i.e. 11-08-2025 is 35 years 8 months and 12 days.
Based on age as mentioned above you fall in second category for age above 35 years to 50 years, accordingly the marks allocated to you were 21. Hence no correction is required for evaluation of marks as per age criteria.
2. Request for correction of Financial Capability Marks The amount mentioned in your application form against Point No. 3 is Rs.28,00,593.39.
Kindly note that there is no other source of fund have been mentioned in your application except ICICI savings A/c 043801519193. You have later submitted vide your letter dated 18.10.2025 the Balance Savings Account No. 043801519193 as on 11-08-2025 is Rs.21,28,453.49 (Rupees Twenty one lakhs twenty eight thousand four hundred fifty three/ and paise forty nine only). Kindly refer Brochure for Selection of Service Provider for COCOs dated 15/12/2023 Point 5: Selection Criteria and Guidelines for Evaluation :
iii. Financial capability The maximum marks awarded is 30.
The candidate will be awarded marks based on availability of "Liquid Assets" beyond Rs.15 Lakhs and up to Rs.30 Lakhs. For every increase of Rs.1 lakh (one lakh) beyond Rs. 15 lakhs, 2 marks will be awarded. For Rs.15 lakhs - 0 marks For Rs.30 lakhs-30 marks (Proportionate marks will be awarded based on Liquid Asset Beyond Rs.15 Lakhs available with the candidate as on date of Application). Please refer page 7 of Brochure for Selection of Service Provider for COCOs dated 15/12/2023 Note: Evaluation would be done only on the basis of applicant's declaration of financial capability in the application form. Also refer 5.2.1 Other Notes for evaluation under head "financial capability"
The funds mentioned in the application form should be available with the applicant as on the date of application which should be mandatorily filled by all applicants.
Calculation of Marks:
As per Balance certificate dated 10.10.2025 from ICICI stating that closing balance in your Savings Account No. 043801519193 as on 11-08- 2025 is Rs.21,28,453.49 (Rupees Twenty one lakhs twenty eight thousand four hundred fifty three and paise forty nine only). Rs.21,28,453.49 - Rs.15,00,000 = 6,28,453.49 Hence, proportionately marks allocated is 12.56.
Bank Guarantee /FDs as claimed by you can't be taken into consideration for marks allocation as it is not part of declaration under point 3 of your application dated 11.08.2025. Since you have mentioned funds in the application form under Point 3a for funds in savings account of ICICI bank and later submitted bank 7 certificate for closing balance as on 11.08.2025 i.e. date of application, evaluation of marks have been carried out for the funds as mentioned above and it is as per the guidelines.
Please note the following points also:
As per the Selection Boucher Financial capability evaluation is based on the assets mentioned in the 5.2 and 5.2.1 and Current account balance, Cash, Jewellery or any other assets not listed in 5.2 will not be considered for award of marks.
View above correct marks have been awarded to you based on financial capability as per guidelines. Hence no correction is required for evaluation of marks under financial capability.
Further as per your grievance:
Clarification regarding scoring methodology has been given above. There is no rectification of marks required as the marks allotted to you under criteria of Age and Financial capability as per your application have been investigated and found correct.
Our investigation, as mentioned above, reveals that the grievance/complaints/allegations made by you have not been found factually correct. Hence, your complaint is being filed and the matter is treated as closed.
The complaint fee remitted by you is forfeited. Thanking you, For Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Sd/-
SHRAVAN KUMAR B Territory Manager (Retail), Nizamabad
12. Thereafter, upon a request made by the 2nd respondent, a personal hearing was afforded on 15.12.2025, after which the Corporation reiterated its earlier stand.
13. Aggrieved, the 2nd respondent filed writ petition challenging the Provisional Merit Panel dated 12.11.2025 and the consequential Letter of Intent dated 19.12.2025 issued in favour of the selected candidate together with I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking a direction to maintain status quo with respect to operation of the outlet, and I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the Letter of Intent.8
14. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 31.12.2025 (the last day of the contract), while issuing notice before admission, directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date in all respects, observing that the non-selection of the writ petitioner and the circumstances surrounding the selection process required examination upon filing of counter affidavits.
15. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the appellant Corporation has preferred the present writ appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellants
16. Learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned order and has advanced submissions as under:
i) That the impugned interim order dated 31.12.2025 is unreasoned and vitiated by non-application of mind. The order does not record satisfaction of the well-settled parameters governing grant of interim orders, namely, the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury.
ii) That the contractual relationship between the appellants and the 2nd respondent expired by efflux of time on 31.12.2025.
The direction to maintain status quo on the very date of expiry has the effect of extending a concluded contract, which is impermissible in law. Further a Court exercising equitable jurisdiction cannot compel continuation of a contract which 9 has come to an end by efflux of time, nor can it create a fresh contractual relationship between the parties.
iii) That the writ petition challenges the selection process and the Letter of Intent dated 19.12.2025 issued in favour of a third- party candidate. The said selected candidate, though a necessary and proper party whose rights are directly affected, was not impleaded in the writ petition.
iv) That the scope of judicial review in matters relating to tenders and award of contracts is extremely limited. Unless the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions, the Court ought not to interfere. The appellant Corporation has strictly adhered to the prescribed guidelines in conducting the selection process. The 2nd respondent did not have any vested right of renewal or preferential consideration in a fresh selection process.
v) That the evaluation of age was carried out strictly in accordance with Clause 5(i) of the Selection guidelines, which employs the expression "Age (completed years)". As on the cut-off date, i.e., 11.08.2025, the 2nd respondent had completed 35 years, 8 months, and 12 days, thereby falling within the category of "above 35 years to 50 years" and rightly awarded 21 marks. The interpretation sought to be advanced 10 by the 2nd respondent that a person is to be treated as 35 years only until completion of 36 years is misconceived.
vi) That the applicable Guidelines relating to financial capability (Clauses 5.2 and 5.2.1) mandated evaluation of solely of declared liquid assets. The 2nd respondent had declared only his Savings Bank Account as a source of liquid assets. The Bank Guarantee was not declared as a liquid asset for evaluation purposes. In any event, a Bank Guarantee is not a liquid asset.
vii) That the balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of the appellants.
viii) That the appellants would suffer grave and irreparable loss if the impugned status quo order is permitted to operate. Submissions on behalf of respondent No.2
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the impugned interim order and has advanced his submissions as under:
i) That the impugned interim order is a discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of equitable jurisdiction.
Interference by this Court is warranted only if such discretion is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.
ii) That the 2nd respondent has made out a strong prima facie case.
The interpretation placed by the appellants on the expression "Age (completed years)" is erroneous. A person can be said to be 11 "above 35 years" only upon completion of 36 years. Since the 2nd respondent had completed only 35 years as on the relevant date, he ought to have been placed in the category of "21 years to 35 years" and awarded 25 marks.
iii) That the appellants have acted arbitrarily in excluding the Bank Guarantee of Rs.29,00,000/-, which is valid and subsisting is backed by a corresponding Fixed Deposit.
iv) That the 2nd respondent has been operating the subject COCO outlet since 01.01.2023 with an unblemished record and has significantly improved the performance of the outlet.
v) That the so-called personal hearing granted on 15.12.2025 was illusory and a mere post-decisional formality. The speaking order rejecting his representation had already been issued on 04.12.2025, and the subsequent hearing was conducted only to formalize a pre-determined decision.
vi) That no irreparable prejudice is caused to the appellants by continuation of the status quo, whereas vacating the same would result in displacement of the 2nd respondent, leading to loss of livelihood and irreversible injury, which cannot be adequately compensated.
18. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged and perused the material on record.
12Consideration by this Court
19. Before adverting to the merits of the interim order, it is apposite to consider the principal objection of the 2nd respondent, that the impugned order dated 31.12.2025 is an interlocutory and discretionary order, and therefore this Court, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, ought not to interfere with the same. This contention cannot be accepted in its absolute form. It is well settled that though appellate courts ordinarily exercise restraint in interfering with discretionary interim orders, such restraint is self-imposed and not a limitation on jurisdiction. Where an interim order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, passed without due application of mind, or in disregard of settled principles governing grant of interim relief, the appellate court would be justified, and indeed obligated, to interfere. In the present case, the impugned order directing maintenance of status quo order passed without adverting to the settled parameters for grant of interim relief prima facie discloses such infirmities warranting appellate scrutiny.
20. It is pertinent to note that a party seeking an order of interim injunction or stay is required to satisfy the three essential parameters, namely, existence of a prima facie case; balance of convenience in its favour; and likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of such relief. However, it is relevant to note that in matters arising out of contracts, tenders, and selection processes, the Courts exercise a 13 greater degree of circumspection while granting interim relief. Having regard to the inherently limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters, interim orders which have the effect of stalling contractual processes or unsettling concluded contractual rights ought to be granted with great circumspection and only in exceptional circumstances.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Limited and others 1 while reiterating the principles laid down in Raunaq International Limited. v. I.V.R. Construction Limited 2, emphasized the need for circumspection in granting interim orders in contractual and public projects, and held as under:
9. The question of grant of interim stay in contractual matters was examined by this Court in a judgment reported as Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. MANU/SC/0770/1998 : (1999) 1 SCC 492. The Court held as under:
13. Hence before entertaining a writ petition and passing any interim orders in such petitions, the court must carefully weigh conflicting public interests. Only when it comes to a conclusion that there is an overwhelming public interest in entertaining the petition, the court should intervene.
xx xx xx
18. The same considerations must weigh with the court when interim orders are passed in such petitions. The party at whose instance interim orders are obtained has to be made accountable for the consequences of the interim order. The interim order could delay the project, jettison finely worked financial arrangements and escalate costs. Hence the Petitioner asking for interim orders in appropriate cases should be asked to provide security for any increase in cost as a result of such delay or any damages suffered by the opposite party in consequence of an interim order.
Otherwise public detriment may outweigh public benefit in 1 AIR 2020 SC 3185 2 (1999) 1 SCC 492 14 granting such interim orders. Stay order or injunction order, if issued, must be moulded to provide for restitution. xx xx xx
25. Therefore, when such a stay order is obtained at the instance of a private party or even at the instance of a body litigating in public interest, any interim order which stops the project from proceeding further must provide for the reimbursement of costs to the public in case ultimately the litigation started by such an individual or body fails. The public must be compensated both for the delay in implementation of the project and the cost escalation resulting from such delay. Unless an adequate provision is made for this in the interim order, the interim order may prove counterproductive.
22. The learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding as to the prima facie case, balance of convenience or irreparable injury of the 2nd respondent warranting interim protection. The impugned interim order merely observes that the facts need examination and directed status quo.
23. The order proceeds on the premise that the 2nd respondent was denied selection on account of having "attained 35 years, 8 months and 12 days". The expression Age (completed years) in the Guidelines is reasonably interpreted by the appellant Corporation. As on 11.08.2025, the 2nd respondent had completed 35 years 8 months and 12 days thus falling 'above 35 to 50 years'. The interpretation that 'above 35 years' means only after completion of 36 years is not supported by the plain language. No prima facie arbitrariness is made out by the 2nd respondent on this count.
15
24. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India 3 has held as under:
32. In view of aforesaid discussion, the question raised in these petitions is answered by holding that the petitioners who have been appointed purely on contractual basis for a fixed term, in accordance with the non-statutory scheme, have no right to claim higher right than what is envisaged in their contract of the appointment and the same would automatically come to an end by efflux of time in terms of the contract. The petitioners holding such posts have no right to continue or claim renewal of the contract, save and except, if so provided in the scheme itself.
(emphasis supplied)
25. It is apposite to note that the 2nd respondent has raised two principal grounds of challenge in the writ petition, namely: improper evaluation of age; and erroneous assessment of financial capability by exclusion of the existing Bank Guarantee. This Court proceeds to examine whether either ground discloses a prima facie case warranting interference with the selection process:
i. Age Evaluation The Selection Guidelines prescribe allocation of marks based on age categories, with the expression "Age (completed years)" forming the basis of classification. The core issue is the interpretation of the expression "completed years" and the phrase "above 35 years." The 2nd respondent contends that a person attains the age of "above 35 years" only upon completion of 36 years. The appellants, on the other hand, contend that once a person has completed 35 years, any age 3 CWP No.9093 of 2014 and batch dated 02.12.2016 16 beyond that point, whether in months or days would fall within the category of "above 35 years."
This Court finds the interpretation adopted by the appellants to be reasonable and in consonance with the language of the Guidelines.
ii. Financial Capability Evaluation The second limb of challenge relates to exclusion of the Bank Guarantee of Rs.29,00,000/- (backed by a Fixed Deposit) from consideration under the head of financial capability.
The Selection Guidelines expressly mandate that evaluation shall be based solely on the financial particulars declared in the application form and that such funds must be available as on the date of application. The 2nd respondent, in his application, declared only his savings bank account as a source of funds and did not disclose either the Fixed Deposit or the Bank Guarantee. A Bank Guarantee is not a liquid asset; it is a contingent obligation. The Fixed Deposit underlying with the Bank was not disclosed. In such circumstances, the appellants were justified in confining the evaluation to the declared financial particulars.
Accordingly, this Court finds no prima facie illegality or arbitrariness in the evaluation of financial capability.
26. The 2nd respondent contends that vacating the status quo order would result in loss of livelihood and cause irreparable injury. While 17 this Court is not unmindful of such hardship, it is evident that his engagement was for a fixed tenure ending on 31.12.2025, with no right to continuation thereafter. The element of uncertainty was inherent in the contract, and 2nd respondent is neither blacklisted nor precluded from seeking other engagements. In that view, the plea of irreparable injury is misconceived, as such injury must be one incapable of monetary compensation; even assuming that the 2nd respondent ultimately succeeds, any loss occasioned by discontinuation can be adequately compensated in damages.
27. Furthermore, the allegation that the grievance redressal mechanism was perfunctory or violative of principles of natural justice is devoid of merit. The record discloses that the 2nd respondent submitted a representation on 28.11.2025, which was duly considered and disposed of by a reasoned order dated 04.12.2025; thereafter, upon his request on 13.12.2025, a personal hearing was granted on 15.12.2025 and the matter was accordingly closed. The mere fact that the speaking order preceded the personal hearing does not vitiate the process, as the subsequent hearing afforded an additional opportunity to the 2nd respondent to present his case, which was duly considered.
28. The balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant Corporation to operate the outlet through the duly selected candidate. The irreparable injury claimed by the 2nd respondent is not capable of 18 outweighing the contractual terms, and loss can be compensated by damages in terms of monetary compensation.
Conclusion
29. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the writ appeal deserves to be allowed.
30. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the interim order dated 31.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.P.No.40512 of 2025 is hereby set aside. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present appeal and shall not influence the learned Single Judge in adjudicating the writ petition on its own merits.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ ______________________________ G.M.MOHIUDDIN,J Date: 06.04.2026 szt