High Court In Its Writ Jurisdiction Passed The Order Out Of Sympathy: Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras HC Order In BPCL Retail Outlet Dealership Matter

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan held, “In effect, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction passed the order out of sympathy, which may have been misplaced as a ground of exercise of such power. 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. The fact of the matter is that the petrol pump could not be established in the last 7 years, thereby seriously prejudicing public interest.”

Advocate Rajeev Mishra represented the Appellants, while AOR Anish R. Shah appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The BPCL had issued an advertisement for the selection of a retail outlet.

The Respondent had mistakenly indicated in her application that she belonged to Group 2, which pertains to those with a ‘firm offer’ for a suitable piece of land, instead of Group 1, for those possessing suitable land.

The Respondent, upon realising her mistake, sent letters to BPCL requesting that her candidature be considered under Group 1. However, BPCL did not act on these representations.

Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that “there exists no room for any discretion to be exercised in favour of the respondent. 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 referred to its decision in Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012), wherein it was held that “the principle that even when the allotment of petrol pumps is made on the basis of a particular criterion, no fault can be found with a decision of the authority as a matter of policy, however, even so a proper method has to be evolved so that the choice can be made out of a pool of eligible candidates, without arbitrariness.”

The Bench explained, “It is clear from the above two requirements that mentioning the incorrect group in the application form is not an exercise in simpliciter and requires the presence/furnishing of various documents. The respondents’ 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, in case the application is by a person falling under Group 1. The respondent was fully aware of her limitation and, as such, took a chance by filling up the wrong category.”

“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. 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 Bench remarked.

Consequently, the Court held 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.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: The General Manager Business Network Planning (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. v. P. Soundarya (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 426)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Rajeev Mishra and Sanand Ramakrishnan

Respondents: AOR Anish R. Shah; Advocate Ankit Sahu

Click here to read/download the Judgment