“The Respondent Took a Chance by Filling Up the Wrong Category”: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court’s Direction to Alter Category in BPCL Petrol Pump Dealership Application
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan held that the High Court erred in directing Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) to consider a dealership application under a category other than the one declared by the applicant. The Court observed that the application process was governed strictly by the terms of the advertisement and the declaration made by the applicant therein, leaving no scope for post-submission reclassification. The bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. It directed BPCL to proceed with the allotment process in accordance with the rules and regulations.
The dispute arose from an advertisement issued by BPCL in November 2018 for selection of retail outlet dealers. The advertisement stipulated that applicants would be divided into two groups depending on the nature of the land offered. Group 1 consisted of applicants owning the land or holding it under a long-term lease. Group 2 included applicants who had a firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or lease.
The respondent applied for dealership under Group 2, indicating a firm offer to lease land rather than direct ownership. Subsequently, she submitted representations dated 12 February 2019, 18 February 2019, and 28 July 2020, seeking reclassification under Group 1 on the basis that she possessed ownership rights over the land in question.
BPCL did not accept these requests. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021 before the High Court of Madras. The petition was disposed of on 18 March 2021 with a direction to BPCL to consider her representations and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.
Pursuant to this, BPCL issued a communication dated 5 April 2021 rejecting the request. It stated that the respondent had applied under Group 2 and that the classification could not be changed due to the online nature of the application process and the selection guidelines.
The respondent thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 13355 of 2021. In this proceeding, it was contended that the selected candidate was ineligible. The High Court disposed of this petition on 10 January 2022, recording that in the event the selected candidate was found to be ineligible, the selection process should continue with other eligible Group 2 applicants, and the respondent’s request could be considered in accordance with law.
On 24 November 2022, the respondent was called to participate in a draw of lots. Subsequently, she filed Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2023, challenging the classification and seeking to be treated as a Group 1 applicant and to be allotted the dealership.
This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, who observed that BPCL should support Scheduled Caste candidates and consider the respondent under Group 1. A writ appeal filed by BPCL was dismissed by the Division Bench. Aggrieved by these directions, BPCL approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.
The Court framed the issue as whether the High Court was justified in directing the consideration of the respondent’s application under a different group than the one originally applied under.
The Court extracted and examined the relevant provisions of the advertisement. It recorded:
“As per clause (v) of the said advertisement, the applicants were to be classified into Group 1 and Group 2 on the basis of the status of the land offered: Group 1: Applicants having suitable piece of land… either by way of ownership/long term lease… Group 2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease…”
It further noted:
“Applicants under Group 1 were required to produce ownership documents or registered lease deed along with the application. Applicants under Group 2 were required to submit firm offer of land along with the requisite documents.”
The Court observed that the application form itself included a declaration:
“I am aware that eligibility for Retail Outlet Dealership will be decided based on information given in the application above. On verification by the Oil Company if it is found that the information given by me is incorrect/false/misrepresented then my candidature will stand cancelled and I will be declared ineligible for the Retail Outlet Dealership.”
It also stated:
“I also confirm that I am in possession of the supporting documents in original in respect of the information given by me in this application and if selected, failure to present these documents in original will result in cancellation of selection due to submission of false/unsupported information in this application.”
The Court recorded that since a clear procedure stood laid down by the competent authority, there existed no room for any discretion to be exercised in favour of the respondent. It stated:
“The representations made by the respondent terming her application under Group 2 to be an error, cannot be considered. Even if she had the requisite land, the Rules provide no leeway for a category change to be made.”
The Court held that the nature of the selection process was such that the respondent's request could not be entertained after submission. It recorded:
“The respondent’s application under Group 2 cannot be a mere error of filling up the form incorrectly, for along with the form documents establishing ownership of land and confirmation from the advocate have to be furnished. The respondent was fully aware of her limitation and, as such, took a chance by filling up the wrong category.”
On the question of judicial review in contractual matters, the Court stated:
“There was a clear brightline distinction between when a State or its instrumentalities could be said to be acting in its executive capacity and when it could be said to be acting in its private capacity. In the latter category, the courts would resile from interfering with the same under their writ jurisdiction.”
Referring to Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Court noted:
“This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out.”
Citing Uflex Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2022) 1 SCC 165, the Court recorded:
“Almost every small or big tender is now sought to be challenged in writ proceedings almost as a matter of routine, as if the same is an acceptable legal practice. This could hardly have been the objective in mind.”
The Court further stated:
“Judicial review in matters of tender and contractual disputes is exercised only when the court finds arbitrariness, mala fides, bias or irrationality or perversity in the decision-making process.”
In the present case, the Court recorded:
“Nowhere has it been shown that any of the facets of Article 14 stand violated.”
It also observed that:
“BPCL, as a Public Sector Undertaking, deals with matters of petroleum and gasoline, which are precious natural resources held by the State in Public Trust.”
Referring to M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388 and Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 1, and Natural Resources Allocation, In re, (2012) 10 SCC 1, the Court reiterated the doctrine of public trust and held:
“No fault can be found with a decision of the authority as a matter of policy... however... the choice must be made out of a pool of eligible candidates, without arbitrariness.”
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and orders of the High Court. It directed as follows:
“In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that the High Court fell in error directing, as it did, for the respondent’s application to be considered not in the Group in which it was filed but in another one. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court with particulars as described in paragraph one is set aside. The appellant shall proceed with the allotment process/formalities in accordance with the Rules and Regulations.”
In its concluding remarks, the Court observed:
“Before we part with this matter, we are constrained to observe that the manner in which the respondent took recourse to the law was unjustified.”
It continued:
“The filing of multiple writ petitions at almost every stage, despite being fully aware of the fact that both the advertisement and the application form made it abundantly clear that consideration of the application could only be as per the documents submitted, led to prolonged litigation, which in actuality ought not to have originated at all.”
The Court noted:
“The respondent hoped, by the effect of the law to get an advantage to which she was in no way entitled, leading to loss of judicial time and public money.”
It further recorded:
“The petrol pump could not be established in the last 7 years, thereby seriously prejudicing public interest.”
All pending applications were disposed of. No order as to costs.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellants: Dhruv Mehta, Senior Advocate; assisted by counsel
For the Respondent: Shailesh Madiyal, Senior Advocate; assisted by counsel
Case Title: The General Manager, Business Network Planning (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Another v. P. Soundarya
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 426
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 7845 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan
[Read/Download order]
