Kerala High Court
Sreelatha.L vs 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd on 28 January, 2026
WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024
1
2026:KER:6417
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 8TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 36434 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
SREELATHA.L.
AGED 53 YEARS
W/O SASIDHARAN, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, ANAMON, PONGUMMOODU,
KOOVALASSERY.P.O., MARANALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695512
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
SRI.P.BIJIMON
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
SHRI.NIRANJAN T. PRADEEP
RESPONDENTS:
1 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR 12TH FLOOR,
E WING, MAKER TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA,
PIN - 400038
2 CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 12TH FLOOR, E WING, MAKER
TOWER, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400005
3 HEAD OF TERRITORY OFFICE
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. TERRITORY OFFICE,
IRIMPANAM INSTALLATION, CCK BUILDING, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682309
WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024
2
2026:KER:6417
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SMT.ANANTHIKA BASANT
SMT.HANNAH RYHANA FAZLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024
3
2026:KER:6417
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2026
1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari to set aside Ext.P9 Communication issued by the 3rd Respondent to the Petitioner that the Petitioner is not eligible for Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership as the Plot offered by the Petitioner is not in the advertised stretch, and seeking a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue Allotment Letter confirming the Provisional Selection of the Petitioner for the Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership for the location at Vazhichal on Kallikkadu - Panachamoodu Road on State Highway.
2. The 1st Respondent issued Advertisement dated 28.06.2023, inviting Applications for Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership at Vazhichal on Kallikkadu - Panachamoodu Road on the State WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 4 2026:KER:6417 Highway. The Petitioner submitted Ext.P1 Application dated 14.09.2023 in response to the Advertisement, producing Ext.P2 Possession Certificate, Ext.P3 Location Certificate, and Ext.P4 Affidavit executed by the landowners stating that in case the Petitioner is selected for the Dealership, they will lease their land having an extent of 900 Sq.Mtrs. in Survey No.5/20 of Amboori Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk to the Petitioner or to the 1st Respondent/Oil Marketing Company and that they have no objection to use their land for setting up a Petroleum Retail Outlet by the Petitioner. As per Ext.P5 Communication dated 05.02.2024, the 3rd Respondent informed the Petitioner that the Petitioner is the lone applicant to the advertised location and therefore the Petitioner is provisionally selected and that it is only a preliminary intimation and the award of the Dealership is subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1st Respondent. When the Petitioner was demanded to pay WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 5 2026:KER:6417 Rs.40,000/- towards the Initial Security Deposit and to upload the relevant documents, the same was complied with by the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner was not issued with the Letter of Intent, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20335/2024, and this Court passed Ext.P8 judgment dated 11.09.2024 directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to conclude the selection process within an outer limit of two months. It is thereafter that the 3rd Respondent has issued Ext.P9 Communication dated 30.09.2024, which has the effect of cancellation of the provisional selection as per Ext.P5.
3. The Respondents opposed the prayers in the Writ Petition by filing a Counter Affidavit. The Petitioner has filed a Reply Affidavit.
4. I heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.R.T.Pradeep and the learned Counsel for the Respondents, Sri. Paulose C. Abraham.
WP(C) No. 36434 of 20246
2026:KER:6417
5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the land offered by the Petitioner is situated in the place called Vazhichal in Amboori Village. Merely because the place Vazhichal is situated within Amboori Village, the Respondents cannot cancel the provisional selection of the Petitioner. The Advertisement issued by the Respondents does not mandate that the land offered should be in Vazhichal Village. The learned counsel further contended that originally, Vazhichal Village was alone there. Later, Vazhichal Village was bifurcated into Vazhichal Village and Amboori Village. The place called Vazhichal comes within Vazhichal Village and Amboori Village. The Petitioner has offered the land in Vazhichal in Amboori Village. So long as the Advertisement does not specify that the land should be in Vazhichal Village, the Respondents cannot cancel the provisional selection as per Ext.P9. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P11 Certificate dated WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 7 2026:KER:6417 13.11.2025 issued by the Secretary, Amboori Grama Panchayat, certifying that the land having an extent of 12.99 Ares in Survey No.5/20 in Block No.36 of Amboori Village belonging to the executants of Ext.P4 Affidavit comes within the place Vazhichal in Amboori Panchayat. In the Ext.P11 Certificate, it is stated that the said certificate is issued for the purpose of producing the same before the 3rd Respondent for a petroleum outlet.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, referring to the pleadings in the Counter Affidavit, contended that it is for the Oil Marketing Company to identify the ideal location for establishing an outlet, considering the need for the petroleum products. The location advertised is Vazhichal on Kallikkadu-Panachamoodu Road on State Highway. When there is a village by the name Vazhichal, the land offered by the Petitioner should be within Vazhichal Village. When the land WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 8 2026:KER:6417 offered by the Petitioner is admittedly within Amboori Village, the Respondents are perfectly justified in cancelling the provisional selection of the Petitioner. The provisional selection of the Petitioner does not confer a vested right on the Petitioner to get allotment of the Dealership. The verification of the offered land takes place after the provisional selection, on the production of the documents by the Applicant. Only when the land offered by the Petitioner was inspected, the Respondents found that it was not in the advertised stretch and it was not suitable as per the requirement of the Respondents. In such a case, the Respondents are fully entitled to cancel the provisional selection. The cancellation of provisional selection could not be said to be arbitrary, irrational, perverse, or motivated by bias or mala fides. In such case, this Court will not have jurisdiction to interfere with the Ext.P9 Communication. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on the WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 9 2026:KER:6417 judgments of this Court in Muneer V.K. v. Union of India and Another [2024:KER:9271] and Tinu Thomas v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Another [2016:KER:44477], the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Agmatel India Private Limited v. Resoursys Telecom and Others [(2022) 5 SCC 362] and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Suprabhat Ghosh v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Others [2022:CHC-AS: 26659] in support of his contentions.
7. I have considered the rival contentions.
8. Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondents have produced the Advertisement inviting applications for the subject dealership. Ext.P10 is the Notification showing the locations of various dealerships advertised by the 1st Respondent. In Ext.P10, the description of the location in Serial No.296 is stated as "Vazhichal on Kallikkadu - Panachamoodu Road on State Highway". Both parties admit that the same description is made in the Advertisement. The description contains only two WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 10 2026:KER:6417 conditions: it should be in Vazhichal, and it should be on the side of Kallikkadu - Panachamoodu Road. The description does not state that the land should be in Vazhichal Village. The Respondents have no case that the land offered by the Petitioner is not on the side of Kallikkadu - Panachamoodu Road. Their contention is that, when the name of the location is shown in the Advertisement as Vazhichal, it should be in Vazhichal Village and should not be in any other village. Admittedly, the land offered by the Petitioner is situated in Amboori Village. It is true that it is for the Oil Marketing Company to identify the place which is best suited for it to open the Petroleum Retail Outlet. The Respondent - Oil Marketing Company has identified the location as Vazhichal on the side of Kallikkadu - Panachamoodu Road. There is no reference to the Village in the description of the location in the Advertisement. In such case, if the selected Applicant offers a land which tallies WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 11 2026:KER:6417 with the description in the Advertisement, the Respondents cannot reject the same for the reason that the offered land is in a different village. Ext.P11 certifies that the land offered by the Petitioner is in the place by name Vazhichal. The Respondents have not disputed Ext.P11 Certificate issued by the Amboori Grama Panchayat. It is specifically stated in Ext.P11 that the Certificate is issued for the purpose of producing the same before the 3rd Respondent for the purpose of Petroleum Outlet. It proves that the land offered by the Petitioner is situated in the place called Vazhichal. The Respondents cannot insist that the place called Vazhichal, where the offered land is situated, should be in Vazhichal Village itself. In the Advertisement, the Respondents have given importance to the name of the place without reference to the name of the Village. In such case, the Respondents cannot change their stand after selection that what they intended is the location in Vazhichal Village and not WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 12 2026:KER:6417 the place called Vazhichal. If the Respondents insist that the land should be in Vazhichal Village, the Respondents would be adding an additional condition that was not there in the Advertisement. Merely because the land offered by the Petitioner is situated in the place called Vazhichal which comes within Ambori village, the Respondents cannot take a stand that it is not in the advertised stretch. The Petitioner applied for a Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership pursuant to the Advertisement issued by the Respondents. The Petitioner has got a legitimate expectation that her Application would be considered when the land offered by her satisfies the description mentioned in the Advertisement. When the Petitioner was given the provisional selection, the Respondents have no right or authority to cancel the provisional selection by adding some condition that was not there in the Advertisement. WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 13
2026:KER:6417
9. In Muneer V.K. (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the location advertised was Thuneri. The land offered by the applicant was in Nadapuram Village. The contention of the Applicant therein was that Nadapuram Village comes within Thuneri Block of Kozhikode District. This Court found that Thuneri Block of Kozhikode District consists of 10 Villages, including Thuneri Village. In such situation, this Court rejected the claim of the Applicant. It is true that this Court has held that unless the Applicant has been given a Letter of Appointment of Dealership, he does not obtain any vested right to claim that he should be selected as a dealer and that the Oil Marketing Company is at liberty to cancel the Notification at any point of time without assigning a reason, provided there are verifiable and tangible cause for doing so. The said decision is clearly distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the present case, this Court is not considering the vested right of WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 14 2026:KER:6417 the Petitioner, but the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner for a favourable consideration of her Application as the land offered by her satisfies the description in the Advertisement. In the said decision also, it is held that there should be a verifiable and tangible cause for cancellation of the Notification. Here, there is no cancellation of the Notification. The Respondents are adding a condition that was not there in the Advertisement.
10. In Tinu Thomas (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the location advertised was Mananthavady. The showroom offered by the Applicant for LPG Distributorship was in Valliyoorkavu. The contention of the Applicant was that Valliyoorkavu Village comes within Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. The Oil Marketing Company contended that Valliyoorkavu is 4 km away from Mananthavady town and that when the location is clearly stated as Mananthavady and the Notification does not refer to any identification based on the WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 15 2026:KER:6417 revenue district or the revenue bifurcation such as Taluk, Panchayat, etc., the Applicant cannot be allowed to interpret any clause in the Notification for his convenience and that the Applicant will have to strictly adhere to the conditions mentioned in the Notification inviting Applications for distributorship. The Division Bench of this Court held that the Oil Marketing Company is the best judge as to how the service can be made more effective, including selecting the proper locations for the proposed showrooms; that it is purely a matter of policy and not liable to be interfered with by the Court, especially when there is no allegation of any mala fide on the part of the Respondents. This Court rejected the claim of the Applicant, finding that the specified location is a must to award the LPG distributorship, as the location is specifically stated as Mananthavady, and it is not open for the Applicant to show his place of showroom as Valliyoorkavu on the ground that it comes within the jurisdiction WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 16 2026:KER:6417 of Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. In this decision, the attempt was from the side of the Applicant to add an additional condition to the Advertisement. This Court has accepted the stand of the Oil Marketing Company that when the Notification does not refer to any identification on the basis of revenue district or revenue bifurcation, etc., the Applicant cannot interpret any clause in the notification for his convenience. If the said principle is applied in the present case, the Oil Marketing Company cannot add the identification with reference to revenue bifurcation like 'Village' to the description in the Advertisement to non-suit the Petitioner. In view of the principle laid down in the said decision, it is the location with respect to the name of the place mentioned in the Advertisement is relevant. In the said decision, the place advertised was Mananthavady, and the showroom offered by the Applicant was in the place Valliyoorkavu. Of course, the identification of WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 17 2026:KER:6417 location is a policy matter of the Oil Marketing Company. But once the location is identified and the same is described in the Advertisement, the Oil Marketing Company cannot deviate from the same to the detriment and prejudice of the Applicants who submitted the Applications relying on the representations in the Advertisement. Hence, the said decision will not in any way support the contentions of the Respondents. But it supports the contentions of the Petitioner, as the attempt to identify the location with reference to the name of the Panchayat is not permitted by this Court.
11. In Agmatel India Private Limited (supra), cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, while considering the scope of judicial review, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the author of the tender document is taken to be the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements; and if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance with the language of WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 18 2026:KER:6417 the tender document or subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court would prefer to keep restraint, and that even if the interpretation given to the tender document by the person inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the Constitutional Court, that, by itself, would not be a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. In the case on hand, first of all, there is no scope for any interpretation of the description of the location in the Advertisement. Interpretation is required when the language admits more than one meaning. When the language admits only one meaning, there is no scope for any interpretation. Even assuming that there is a need for interpretation, the interpretation given by the Respondents is manifestly not in consonance with the language of the Advertisement. As stated earlier, the Respondents are attempting to add something which is not there in the Advertisement.
WP(C) No. 36434 of 202419
2026:KER:6417
12. The decision of the Calcutta High Court cited by the learned Counsel for the Respondents in Suprabhat Ghosh (supra) is also distinguishable, as the Advertisement was for the location 'Satgachia', but the land offered by the Applicant was not in Satgachia Village. There was no contention for the Applicant that the offered land is in the place called Satgachia. Hence, the Court found that the land offered is not located in the Village of Satgachia and thus rejected the claim of the Applicant.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I hold that the land offered by the Petitioner in Survey No.5/20 of Amboori Village, which is situated in the place called Vazhichal, satisfies the description mentioned in the Advertisement made by the Respondents. The Petitioner is entitled to succeed in this Writ Petition.
14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, issuing Writ of Certiorari setting aside Ext.P9, which cancelled the provisional selection of the Petitioner as per Ext.P5, and issuing a Writ of WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 20 2026:KER:6417 Mandamus compelling the Respondents to process Ext.P1 Application of the Petitioner for Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership for the purpose of issuing a Letter of Intent in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to enable the Petitioner to obtain other statutory Permissions/ Licences/ NOC.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE Jma/Shg WP(C) No. 36434 of 2024 21 2026:KER:6417 APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 36434 OF 2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14.9.2023 BY PETITIONER FOR THE SUBJECT LOCATION AT VAZHICHAL ON KALLIKKADU - PANACHAMOODU ROAD ON STATE HIGHWAY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 1.2.2024 OF THE LAND OFFERED FOR SUBJECT LOCATION ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBOORI VILLAGE OFFICE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH OF THE LAND OFFERED FOR SUBJECT LOCATION WHICH IS NIL DATED ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBOORI Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF THE LAND OWNERS NAMELY SHABEEK AND SHAKKEELA IN APPENDIX III DATED 14.9.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 5.2.2024 BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER INFORMING OF HER PROVISIONAL SELECTION AS RETAIL OUTLET DEALER Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 5.2.2024 BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER TO REMIT INITIAL SECURITY DEPOSIT AND TO UPLOAD THE ENUMERATED SELF-ATTESTED DOCUMENTS Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 16.4.2024 OF REMITTANCE OF RS.40,000/-
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.9.2024 IN W.P.(C) NO.20335/2024 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED 30.9.2024 FROM THE RESPONDENTS TO PETITIONER DISQUALIFYING THE PETITIONER FOR AWARD OF RO DEALERSHIP Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION PERTAINING TO SERIAL NO.296 OF SUBJECT LOCATION - 'VAZHICHAL ON KALLIKKADU PANACHAMOODE ROAD ON STATE HIGHWAY' ALONG WITH TRUE TYPED LEGIBLE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION WHICH IS NIL DATED Exhibit P11 True copy of the certificate dated 13.11.2025 issued by Amboori Grama Panchayath certifying that the property offered by the petitioner fall within the place called Vazhichal in Amboori Grama Panchayath