Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 234
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sudhanshu Dhulia, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Jagwant Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1040 of 2025 (@S.L.P. (C) No…… of 2025) (@Diary No. 45994/2024)
Decided On : 27-01-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V.Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Harshad Sunder, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR Ms. Kirti Leela Ratnam, Adv. Mr. Punit Manoj Agarwwal, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav, Adv. Mrs. Priya Puri, AOR Ms. Parul Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ritim Mangla, Adv. Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sachin Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vibhav Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Sharad Kumar Puri, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
L.P.G. Distributorship can be allotted where land satisfied all requirements as per advertisement.
Headnote:
Government Contract – L.P.G. Distributorship – Allotment of – Respondent did not suffer from any disability by reason of offering the land, which she had obtained by virtue of a lease deed – Land satisfied all requirements as per advertisement and land offered by another applicant for the very same distributorship was a separate parcel of land, lying within larger extent partitioned among family members of lessor – Lessor had absolute rights and possession over both extents leased out as affirmed by revenue official – Alternate land has been offered only in context of shifting stance of lessor acceptance of which by Corporation was possible as per guidelines which provided more flexibility in allotment process – No reason to interfere with Judgments impugned. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was before High Court challenging allotment of L.P.G. distributorship at Balachaur; applications to which were invited by the Indian Oil Corporation by advertisement dated 19.01.2013 for allotment of such distributorship under various categories in different locations. 4th respondent turned out successful by draw of lots held on 18.12.2014. Selection was cancelled initially by reason of instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which stood revived by virtue of guidelines issued by the Ministry dated 18.12.2015, later superseded by guidelines of 25.02.2016. Writ Petition was rejected and appeal filed therefrom also stood rejected, against which the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition.
Findings of Court:
There is absolutely no reason to place any credence on the affidavit of lessor dated 11.01.2018, which was quite contrary to the earlier affidavit of the lessor himself. There is clear indication that the lands leased out by 4th respondent and other applicant were two separate parcels owned by very same lessor.
Result : Civil Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was before the High Court challenging the allotment of L.P.G. distributorship at Balachaur; applications to which were invited by the Indian Oil Corporation (for brevity, “the Corporation”) by advertisement dated 19.01.2013 for allotment of such distributorship under various categories in different locations. The 4th respondent turned out successful by draw of lots held on 18.12.2014. The selection was cancelled initially by reason of instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which stood revived by virtue of the guidelines issued by the Ministry dated 18.12.2015, later superseded by guidelines of 25.02.2016. The Writ Petition was rejected and the appeal filed therefrom also stood rejected, against which the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition in which we granted leave.
3. Shri V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that, along with the 4th respondent one other applicant had also proffered the very same piece of land for setting up the distributorship and this invited a disqualification as per the guidelines. The 4th respondent has now offered yet another land, which was not even available with the 4th respondent at the time when the application was made for the distributorship. The guidelines issued by the Corporation required possession by virtue of ownership or lease, as on the date of application and subsequent acquisition either by ownership or lease could not have been accepted by the Corporation. The affidavit filed by the lessor itself conceded that two lease deeds were executed with respect to the very same land, clearly indicating that the very same land offered by the 4th respondent was offered by another applicant.
4. Shri Mrinal Kanwar R, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent argues that the lessor of the 4th respondent had a larger extent of land than that leased out to the 4th respondent. Both the applicants were granted lease of equal extents, as per the requirement in the application, but these were different parcels of land lying contiguously with a still larger extent of property owned by the lessor and his family members. In fact, all the owners of the larger extent had issued consent letters in favour of the 4th respondent, despite having no interest on the specific property leased out to the 4th respondent. In any event, to have a quietus and especially in the context of the lessor having resiled from his earlier affidavit; that the subject property was only leased out to the 4th respondent, there was another property offered which satisfied every requirement for grant of the distributorship. It is true that the said property was not in the possession of the 4th respondent at the time of the application and such acquisition was necessitated only because of the shifting stance of the lessor. It is also submitted that the 4th respondent has already established the distributorship and has been running the same for a number of years and there is no cause for finding a disability to apply; on the 4th respondent, at this juncture.
5. Smt. Priya Puri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation supports the 4th respondent and asserts that the inquiries made by the Corporation clearly indicated that the two applicants, though have taken out lease from very same lessor, there were two different parcels of land, lying at the location which were also far lesser than the total extent owned by the lessor himself.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/writ petitioner had raised a contention that the affidavit of the co- sharers, even as per the guidelines, though could have been obtained at the time of field verification, such affidavits are to be those executed prior to the date of the application. The learned Single Judge looking at the specific provision as available in the advertisement, found that the ownership of a land with specific dime
