The Patna High Court has dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal challenging the allotment of an Indian Oil retail outlet in Bihar’s Buxar district. The Division Bench held that mere pendency of a criminal case-without framing of charges on the cut-off date-did not automatically disqualify the selected candidate.
The appeal was filed by Binod Kumar Mishra against Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and the selected dealer, questioning the legality of the dealership granted nearly two decades ago.
Read also:- Sikkim High Court Closes NHM Transfer Dispute After Amicable Settlement Between Employee
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to an advertisement issued in 2000 for a retail outlet dealership at Brahmpur in Buxar. After multiple rounds of litigation-including proceedings before the Supreme Court-the matter was reconsidered in 2008. Fresh affidavits were invited, interviews were conducted again, and the private respondent was once more placed at Rank 1.
Mishra, who ranked second, alleged that the selected candidate had suppressed information about a pending criminal case while filing the application and affidavit. According to him, this non-disclosure violated Clause 4 of the advertisement, which dealt with criminal antecedents.
Earlier, a Single Judge had dismissed his writ petition in December 2024. The present appeal challenged that decision.
Read also:- Patna High Court Dismisses Plea for Compensation Over Alleged Illegal Detention, Flags Lapses
What the Appellant Argued
Senior counsel for the appellant contended that the selected dealer had falsely declared that no criminal case was pending against her. It was argued that a chargesheet had been filed in 1990 and cognizance had been taken in court.
“The selection stood vitiated at its inception due to deliberate suppression,” the appellant’s counsel submitted, stressing that even pendency of a case required disclosure.
He further argued that once suppression of material facts is established, equity or lapse of time cannot cure the defect.
Stand of IOCL and the Selected Dealer
IOCL countered that disqualification under the advertisement applied only if charges had been framed by a competent court or if the candidate had been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or economic crime.
The Corporation informed the court that although a criminal case existed, charges were framed only in 2018-long after the application and the 2008 reconsideration process. The candidate was later exonerated by the Juvenile Justice Board in 2020.
IOCL also maintained that the advertisement-not the wording of the application form-governed eligibility conditions.
Read also:- Madras High Court Rules Grandparents Not ‘Family’ for Stamp Duty Concession in Settlement Deeds
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench examined whether mere pendency of a criminal case, without framing of charges on the relevant date, would automatically render a candidate ineligible.
The court observed, “Disqualification clauses must receive strict construction and cannot be expanded beyond their clear language.”
It held that Clause 4 of the advertisement did not mandate automatic rejection merely because a case was pending at a preliminary stage. Since charges had not been framed on the cut-off date, the ineligibility clause was not triggered.
On the argument that the application form required broader disclosure, the Bench clarified that the advertisement was the controlling document. “The application form is ancillary and cannot independently enlarge the scope of disqualification,” the court noted.
The judges also rejected the plea that IOCL’s decision was arbitrary. They found that the Corporation had passed a reasoned order after considering the appellant’s representation.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Sends 17-Year-Old Girl to Mehsana Children Home After She Refuses to Return to
Delay and Equity Considerations
Another important factor weighed by the court was delay. The dealership had been operational for many years, and the selected dealer had made substantial investments.
The Bench observed that courts exercising writ jurisdiction must also consider equity and settled commercial arrangements. Interfering after such a long lapse of time would cause disruption.
On the attempt to raise a new plea regarding violation of another clause of the advertisement, the court refused to entertain it, holding that parties are bound by their pleadings.
The Decision
Concluding that there was no error in the Single Judge’s judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal.
“Clause 4 does not mandate automatic ineligibility merely on account of pendency of a criminal case where charges had not been framed,” the court held, affirming IOCL’s selection process.
There was no order as to costs.
Case Title: Binod Kumar Mishra vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd & Ors
Case No.: Letters Patent Appeal No. 140 of 2025
Decision Date: 20 February 2026
