The Patna High Court mandates that allocation processes for public dealerships must adhere to principles of natural justice, including giving applicants an opportunity to participate in inquiries and access to all evidence; any denial thereof vitiates the entire process. This judgment upholds and strengthens existing precedent on natural justice in public employment and dealership allocations. The decision is binding on all subordinate courts in Bihar and serves as persuasive authority elsewhere, especially in cases concerning state action affecting livelihood.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/6282/2018 of Anju Singh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited Through Its Managing Director and Ors |
| CNR | BRHC010913542018 |
| Date of Registration | 04-04-2018 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Bihar; persuasive to other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law – Principles of Natural Justice in dealership allocation; Public Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether denial of opportunity to participate in inquiry, access evidence, and lack of procedural fairness in allocation of public dealership vitiates the selection process? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that denial of fair hearing and non-disclosure of evidence/records to an applicant, in the conduct of inquiries affecting allocation of public dealerships, violates the principles of natural justice. Such procedural lapses make the entire selection vulnerable to judicial interference, especially where livelihood rights are at stake. The video recording of the selection process must be clear, complete, and accessible to all concerned parties. Transparency and participation are mandatory requirements. The Court quashed the selection and ordered a fresh, fair process involving the applicant with access to all material. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, an applicant for a dealership, alleged manipulation and procedural unfairness in the allocation process, specifically not being allowed to participate in the inquiry, not receiving access to video evidence, and not having a chance to challenge the findings. The IOCL’s investigation was conducted ex parte, and video evidence had crucial gaps. The Court found these procedural lapses were fatal to the fairness of the process. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Bihar; IOCL and other allocation bodies within the territorial jurisdiction. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and administrative agencies dealing with public allocations/dealerships. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that adherence to principles of natural justice—including the right to be heard, participate in inquiries, and access evidence—is mandatory in public dealership allocations.
- Highlights that non-disclosure of inquiry reports or video evidence to affected parties, and ex parte investigations, are fatal procedural defects.
- Mandates full transparency: selection exercises must have complete, unambiguous video records and active participation of all concerned.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment wherever allocations, recruitments, or enquiries affecting livelihood are conducted without such procedural safeguards.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court critically examined the sequence of events, including the conduct of the draw, the subsequent complaint, and the handling of video evidence and inquiry.
- It expressly found that the petitioner had not been given a chance to participate in or be heard during the inquiry, violating established principles of natural justice.
- The video evidence, though purportedly complete, was found to have significant gaps with non-disclosure of the key act (actual display and announcement of the result) and was not shared with the petitioner.
- The Court reasoned that, in matters affecting an individual’s right to livelihood, fairness, transparency, and reasonable opportunity to contest or participate are non-negotiable.
- As a result, both the inquiry and the selection were tainted by procedural impropriety; thus, the selection was quashed and a fresh draw was ordered with specific directions for transparency and full participation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The inquiry into the alleged irregularities was conducted ex parte (behind the petitioner’s back).
- She was denied opportunity to participate or present evidence.
- Video footage of the draw was withheld and was incomplete.
- The entire process was vitiated by mala fide intent and lack of transparency, gravely affecting her livelihood.
Respondent (IOCL)
- The draw and subsequent investigation were performed as per established guidelines.
- Proceedings of the draw were video recorded from different angles, which were examined by the Investigation Officer.
- The allegations made by the petitioner were found unsubstantiated in the internal inquiry.
- There was no mala fide intent, and any momentary non-visibility of the slip was inadvertent.
Private Respondent No. 5
- Did not appear, despite notice and opportunity.
Factual Background
The petitioner applied for an Indian Oil Corporation Limited dealership at a specified location in East Champaran, with the selection to be decided by a draw of lots. Only the petitioner and Respondent No. 5 were eligible. During the draw, the slip announcing the winner was neither publicly announced nor sufficiently displayed, leading the petitioner to allege manipulation. After raising a formal complaint and paying the requisite fee, the petitioner was not included in the resulting inquiry. Ultimately, the corporation rejected her complaint, forfeited her fee, and proceeded to allocate the dealership to Respondent No. 5, prompting the writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment centers on general principles of natural justice applicable to public law adjudication, particularly regarding participation and transparency in quasi-administrative selection procedures. Specific reference to statutory provisions is absent, but the judgment underscores that these procedural guarantees are integral to all public allocations relating to livelihood, regardless of whether prescribed explicitly in statutory rules or merely in administrative/executive guidelines.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the decision is single-judge and unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- Direction for a fresh draw of lots with specific procedural safeguards: presence and participation of all eligible candidates, complete and clear video recording, and access to all relevant documents and evidence.
- Suspension of previous allocation pending completion of the fresh process.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Principles of natural justice affirmed as essential in all public allocation/selection proceedings affecting individual rights and livelihoods.