Orissa High Court
Gyana Ranjan Behera vs Union Of India & Ors. …. Opposite … on 17 April, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31306 of 2021
(In the matter of petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Gyana Ranjan Behera .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
Union of India & Ors. .... Opposite Party(s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Siti Kant Mishra, Adv.
For Opp. Party(s) : Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Adv.
(for O.P. Nos.3 & 4)
Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
(for O.P. Nos.5 & 6
Mr. U.C. Pattnaik, Adv.
(for O.P. No.7)
Ms. Sanjibani Mishra, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATES OF HEARING:- 24.03.2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 17.04.2026
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The petitioner in the present petition challenges the action of Opposite
Party Nos. 2 to 4 in selecting and awarding the dealership for a regular
rural retail outlet (petrol pump) in favour of Opposite Party No. 7,
allegedly in violation of the mandatory guidelines/rules framed in that
regard.
Page 1
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
2. Consequently, the petitioner prays that the dealership awarded in
favour of Opposite Party No. 7 for the location Athagarh to Karikol
under the Athagarh Notified Area Council, operating in the name and
style of “Maa Karikoliani Filling Station”, be quashed.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
3. Succinctly put, the facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Opposite Party No. 2 had floated an advertisement on 25.11.2018 in the
local daily “The Samaja”, inviting applications from intending
candidates for award of RO dealerships at various locations in Odisha.
In the said advertisement, it was indicated that the details could be
found on the official website.
(ii) The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. In terms of the
advertisement, the petitioner procured the detailed brochure, which
stipulates certain benefits for physically handicapped persons, and
accordingly applied for the said dealership.
(iii) The application submitted by the petitioner for the dealership was duly
accepted by Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4, and upon scrutiny of the
application along with the documents filed, the petitioner was found
eligible for the draw of lots for selection of RO dealership. The petitioner
was accordingly informed, vide e-mail dated 22.01.2019, to appear
personally on 04.02.2019 at OTDC Panthanivas, Bhubaneswar for the
said purpose.
(iv) The petitioner appeared for the draw of lots as per the communication
received. However, he was declared unsuccessful and Opposite Party
No. 7 was awarded the RO dealership. It is submitted that the petitioner,
Page 2
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
being eligible and qualified, had a bona fide expectation of being
awarded the dealership, particularly as he had gathered reliable
information that the application submitted by Opposite Party No. 7 was
defective. Upon the award of dealership in favour of Opposite Party No.
7, the petitioner made further enquiry and found that the proposed site
for the petrol pump, as indicated by Opposite Party No. 7, does not fall
within the limits of the Athagarh NAC area. Accordingly, the petitioner
submitted a representation dated 20.01.2021 to Opposite Party No. 5,
apprising the detailed facts and requesting necessary action. Along with
the said representation, the petitioner annexed a revenue map reflecting
the Athagarh NAC area limits, a recent photograph of the site, and
information obtained under the RTI Act from the JE-cum-Election In-
Charge, Athagarh, indicating the boundary limits of Athagarh NAC.
(v) The petitioner further came to know that Opposite Party No. 7 is
involved in a criminal case under Sections 144, 323, 307, 148 and 149 of
the IPC vide G.R. Case No. 411(A) of 1997, which is pending before the
Court of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No.
33 of 2017.
(vi) The petitioner, having no other speedy or efficacious remedy, has
approached this Court.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions.
(i) The petitioner submitted that Opposite Party No. 7, being involved in a
criminal case and that the proposed site for the petrol pump does not fall
Page 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42within the Athagarh NAC limits, ought to have had his application
rejected outright in terms of the stipulations contained in the detailed
brochure, and that Opposite Party No. 7 has been wrongly favoured by
Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4.
(ii) It was further submitted that despite apprising the relevant facts to the
authorities through Opposite Party No. 5, no action has been taken. The
petitioner also submitted another representation dated 28.06.2021 to
Opposite Party No. 4 regarding the involvement of Opposite Party No. 7
in the aforesaid criminal case, and copies thereof were served upon
Opposite Party No. 5 and the Civil Supplies Officer along with other
authorities, requesting action in the matter, but to no avail.
(iii) It was submitted that for obtaining a licence to sell High Speed Diesel at
a petrol pump, the applicant, that is Opposite Party No. 7, is required to
apply before Opposite Party No. 5, and only upon grant of such licence
can the applicant undertake such sale. For this purpose, specific
guidelines are prescribed, under which the applicant is required to
furnish an affidavit stating that he is not involved in any criminal case.
(iv) It was submitted that the affidavit was sworn on 28.04.2021 at a time
when the criminal case was pending, and the acquittal occurred only on
21.05.2022, thereby indicating that a false affidavit had been furnished.
(v) It was further submitted that there are discrepancies in the plot numbers
relied upon by the parties, and the petitioner contends that the actual
plot on which the retail outlet has been established does not fall within
the Athagarh NAC limits.
Page 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
(vi) It was further submitted that Opposite Party No. 7, despite not having
been granted a licence by Opposite Party No. 5, is illegally selling High
Speed Diesel. In this regard, a receipt dated 21.09.2021 evidencing sale of
diesel by Opposite Party No. 7 at “Maa Karikoliani Filling Station” has
been relied upon.
(vii) The petitioner submitted that under the guise of a draw of lots, Opposite
Party Nos. 2 to 4 have granted the dealership in a manner which is
palpably illegal and arbitrary in view of the facts stated above. The
petitioner, being a physically handicapped person, has fulfilled all the
eligibility criteria for grant of such licence in his favour. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had apprised Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 6 of
these facts and requested cancellation of the licence granted to Opposite
Party No. 7 by way of representations, but no action has been taken. On
the other hand, Opposite Party No. 7 is stated to be selling High Speed
Diesel without obtaining a licence from Opposite Party No. 5. Therefore,
the licence granted to Opposite Party No. 7, being illegal, is liable to be
quashed.
(viii) It was submitted that Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 are required to adhere
to their own guidelines and rules. However, in the present case, despite
being aware that the petrol pump in the name and style of “Maa
Karikoliani Filling Station”, run by Opposite Party No. 7 over Plot No.
847/1219, Khata No. 349/204 under Mouza Bhitar Karikol, P.S. and
Tahasil Athagarh, District Cuttack, is in clear violation of the said
guidelines and rules, particularly with regard to the prescribed
operational boundary area, the involvement of Opposite Party No. 7 in a
Page 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
criminal case, and the alleged sale of High Speed Diesel without the
requisite licence, the said authorities have remained silent. It is further
submitted that by such inaction, the petitioner’s right to trade has been
infringed. In view of the facts and circumstances, it is prayed that this
Court may be pleased to intervene in the matter in the interest of justice.
(ix) If the reliefs prayed for are not granted, the petitioner shall be highly
prejudiced and shall suffer irreparable loss.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made
the following submissions:
(i) It was submitted that the writ petition challenges the selection and
award of the retail outlet dealership for the location “Athagarh to
Karikol within Athagarh NAC limit” under the OBC category in favour
of Opposite Party No. 7.
(ii) It was submitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 25.11.2018,
applications were invited for retail outlet dealerships and the mode of
selection was by draw of lots. The petitioner had applied under the OBC
category and his candidature was considered accordingly.
(iii) It was submitted that Opposite Party No. 7 was selected through draw
of lots and was issued Letter of Intent and thereafter a Letter of
Appointment, and the retail outlet has been commissioned and is
operating.
(iv) It was submitted that the allegation that the site does not fall within
Athagarh NAC limits is incorrect. The Notified Area Council, Athagarh
had confirmed that Mouza Bhitarkarikol falls within the NAC limits.
Page 6
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
The Land Evaluation Committee of the Corporation also inspected the
land and found it to be within the advertised location.
(v) It was submitted that the Corporation acted on the basis of official
records available at the relevant time and the petitioner’s reliance on
subsequent material is not tenable.
(vi) It was submitted that as per the brochure, disqualification arises only in
case of conviction for offences involving moral turpitude or economic
offences. Opposite Party No. 7 had submitted an affidavit stating that he
has not been convicted of any such offence.
(vii) It was further submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case does not
amount to disqualification. It is also submitted that Opposite Party No. 7
has been acquitted in the said criminal case.
(viii) It was submitted that the dealership was advertised under the OBC
category and not under the physically handicapped category, and the
petitioner had applied under the OBC category.
(ix) It was submitted that there is no illegality in the selection of Opposite
Party No. 7 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed
on record.
7. Insofar as the contention relating to the location of the proposed site is
concerned, it is an admitted position that the advertisement dated
25.11.2018 stipulated that the retail outlet was to be established within
the limits of the Athagarh Notified Area Council. The petitioner
contends that the actual site proposed by Opposite Party No. 7, being
Page 7
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
Mouza Bhitar Karikol, falls outside the NAC limits, and in support
thereof, has placed reliance upon a revenue map, a recent photograph of
the site, and information received under the RTI Act from the JE-cum-
Election In-Charge, Athagarh, delineating the boundary limits of
Athagarh NAC.
8. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have categorically stated that the
Notified Area Council, Athagarh had officially confirmed that Mouza
Bhitarkarikol falls within the NAC limits. Furthermore, the Land
Evaluation Committee of the Corporation, which is the expert body
constituted for such purposes, conducted a physical inspection of the
proposed site and concluded that the same is situated within the
advertised location.
9. It is well settled that courts exercising writ jurisdiction are not expected
to sit in appeal over the findings of expert bodies on matters involving
technical or factual determinations, particularly when such findings are
based on official records and personal inspection. The petitioner has not
placed on record any authoritative notification, gazette, or order issued
by the competent authority conclusively establishing that Mouza Bhitar
Karikol falls outside the Athagarh NAC limits. The material relied upon
by the petitioner, though having some probative value, does not possess
the legal authority necessary to override the official confirmation issued
by the Notified Area Council and the findings of the Land Evaluation
Committee. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner on
this score does not merit acceptance.
Page 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
10. Turning to the contention relating to the alleged criminal antecedents of
Opposite Party No. 7, it is the submission of the petitioner that Opposite
Party No. 7 was involved in G.R. Case No. 411(A) of 1997, which was
pending as S.T. Case No. 33 of 2017 before the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Athagarh, at the time of application and also at the time when the
affidavit was sworn on 28.04.2021 before Opposite Party No. 5 for the
purposes of obtaining a licence to sell High Speed Diesel. The petitioner
submits that the said affidavit, in which Opposite Party No. 7 declared
that he had not been convicted of any criminal offence, was false,
inasmuch as the criminal case was admittedly pending at that time, and
acquittal was obtained only on 21.05.2022.
11. This Court is of the considered opinion that a careful reading of the
relevant clause in the brochure issued by Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 is
necessary for adjudicating this issue. The submission of the Opposite
Parties, which finds support in the brochure, is that the disqualification
stipulated therein is attracted only upon conviction for offences
involving moral turpitude or economic offences, and not upon mere
pendency of a criminal case. The distinction between pendency of a
criminal proceeding and a conviction thereunder is well recognised in
law. An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and mere
pendency of a criminal case cannot be treated as equivalent to a
conviction. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that
Opposite Party No. 7 was disqualified solely on the ground of pendency
of the criminal case, particularly when the brochure does not so
stipulate.
Page 9
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
12. Furthermore, the affidavit submitted by Opposite Party No. 7 on
28.04.2021 declared absence of conviction and not absence of
involvement in pending proceedings, which was accurate at the time of
its making. The subsequent acquittal on 21.05.2022 further reinforces the
position that no conviction was ever recorded. In the circumstances, the
contention that a false affidavit was furnished is not borne out from the
record and is accordingly rejected.
13. The next contention relates to the alleged unlicensed sale of High Speed
Diesel by Opposite Party No. 7. The petitioner has placed reliance on a
receipt dated 21.09.2021, purportedly evidencing sale of diesel at “Maa
Karikoliani Filling Station” prior to the grant of licence by Opposite
Party No. 5. This Court is conscious of the serious nature of such an
allegation. However, in the present proceedings, the primary challenge
pertains to the validity of the selection and award of the dealership in
favour of Opposite Party No. 7. The question as to whether Opposite
Party No. 7 has been selling diesel without a valid licence is essentially a
question of fact which requires examination by Opposite Party No. 5,
being the competent licensing authority. This Court notes that the
petitioner has already approached the concerned authorities in this
regard. However, on the basis of a solitary receipt, the authenticity of
which is disputed, this Court is not inclined to render any conclusive
finding. The appropriate course for the petitioner is to pursue the matter
before the said authority.
14. The petitioner has also raised a grievance regarding the category under
which the dealership was advertised. It is not in dispute that the
Page 10
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
dealership was advertised under the OBC category and that both the
petitioner and Opposite Party No. 7 had applied under the said
category. The petitioner’s status as a physically handicapped person
does not alter the nature of the category under which the dealership was
advertised. No separate reservation for physically handicapped persons
was provided for the said dealership, and therefore, the petitioner’s
claim on this ground is unsustainable.
15. It is further noted that the selection of Opposite Party No. 7 was effected
through a draw of lots, which is a recognised mode of selection and is
fair and non-discriminatory when all applicants are equally eligible. No
material has been placed on record to demonstrate that the draw of lots
was conducted in an arbitrary or unfair manner.
16. This Court is mindful that in matters of commercial dealerships, once a
dealership has been awarded and is operational, interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is warranted only in cases of
manifest illegality. In the present case, no such illegality has been
established.
17. However, since the petitioner has already submitted representations in
this regard and the same remain pending, this Court deems it
appropriate to direct that the said representations dated 20.01.2021 and
28.06.2021 shall be considered by Opposite Party No. 5, being the
competent licensing authority, within a period of three months from the
date of this order, particularly with regard to the allegation of
unlicensed sale of High Speed Diesel.
Page 11
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT,
CUTTACK
Date: 20-Apr-2026 17:51:42
V. CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds no merit in the Writ
Petition insofar as the prayer for quashing the dealership awarded in
favour of Opposite Party No. 7 is concerned.
19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merit insofar as the
prayer for quashing is concerned, is disposed of with a direction to
Opposite Party No. 5 to examine the petitioner’s representations dated
20.01.2021 and 28.06.2021 and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. In the event any illegality is found, the said
authority shall take action in accordance with law.
20. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 17th April, 2026 .
Page 12