Tapas Kumar Das vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 250

DIPANKAR DATTA, SANJAY KUMAR
Tapas Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudipta Kumar Bose, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Mr. P.S. Sudheer, AOR Mr. Rishi Maheshwari, Adv. Ms. Anne Mathew, Adv. Ms. Miranda Solaman, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mr. Divyam Dhyani, Adv. Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallak Bhagat, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the cancellation of the appellant’s candidature was justified because the land offered by him did not conform to the location specified in the advertisement, which indicated the area as Haripal within the Haripal block. The interpretation of the advertisement’s language and the understanding of the location criteria are crucial; the land situated in Gopinagar mouza was outside the scope of the specified location. Furthermore, the decision to cancel must be based strictly on the terms of the advertisement and the pleadings, without reliance on unpleaded considerations or assumptions about the authority’s intentions. The Court emphasized that ambiguity in the advertisement does not override the requirement that the offered land meet the explicit location criteria, and decisions must adhere to the actual terms provided therein (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1. An intra-court appellate judgment and order¹ [dated 28th March, 2019] (“impugned judgment” hereafter) of an Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta (“High Court” hereafter), reversing the judgment and order² [dated 25th January, 2019] (“order” hereafter) of a learned Single Judge, is called in question in the instant civil appeal. Vide the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal³ [M.A.T. No. 255 of 2019 with C.A.N. No. 1818 of 2019] carried by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (“HPCL” hereafter) from the order and set aside the same. The Single Judge had, while allowing a writ petition⁴ [W.P. No. 1595 (W) of 2019] of Mr. Tapas Kumar Das (“appellant” hereafter), directed HPCL to proceed with his candidature for LPG⁵ [Liquified Petroleum Gas] distributorship.

BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS

2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, lie in a narrow compass.

3. HPCL, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“IOCL” hereafter) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a joint advertisement for LPG distributorships at several locations in the 31st August, 2017 editions of the Bangla dailies Bartaman and An

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 250

DIPANKAR DATTA, SANJAY KUMARTapas Kumar Das – AppellantVersusHindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent

DIPANKAR DATTA, SANJAY KUMAR
Tapas Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent