Back
2014 Supreme(Cal) 718
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
JYOTIRMAY BHATTACHARYA & TAPASH MOOKHERJEE, JJ.
Saheli Patra (Maity)
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others
M.A.T. No. 1323 of 2014 with C.A.N. No. 7710 of 2014 (Appellate Side)
Decided on: 04-12-2014
For the Appellant:Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv., Partha Sarathi Basu, Satyajit Talukdar, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Amitava Shukla, Prakash Chandra Pande, R3, S.N. Mukherjee, Sr. Adv., R.A. Agarwal, Nibedita Pal, Ramesh Dhara, A.G. Mukherjee, Advocates.
An unsuccessful candidate who does not have even a remote chance of being selected in case the appointment of the successful candidate is recalled cannot be allowed to maintain a writ petition challenging the appointment on the ground of ineligibility.
Headnote:
LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP - APPOINTMENT - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - SHOWROOM LOCATION - MANDAMUS APPEAL - COURT'S DIRECTION TO OIL COMPANY - RENEWAL OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP - TRADING AREA DEFINITION - FRESH ADVERTISEMENT FOR SELECTION OF SUITABLE CANDIDATE.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute involved in the writ petition relates to the appointment of a LPG distributor at Digha (U/R) in the District of East Medinipur. Both the writ petitioner and the private respondent No.3 applied for grant of LPG distributorship at Digha (U/R) in terms of the notice for appointment of LPG distributor published in 16th September, 2007. The private respondent was selected for her appointment as LPG distributor at Digha and was appointed as a distributor on 20th August, 2011. The writ petitioner filed a writ petition alleging that the private respondent failed to satisfy the condition contained in para 13.2 of the said notice of appointment regarding the location of the showroom.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the writ petitioner's complaint against the private respondent was not without substance, as the land offered by the private respondent for her showroom was not located within the trading area of the advertised location for LPG distributorship. However, the Court also noted that the writ petitioner had failed to satisfy the same eligibility criteria as the private respondent, as the land offered by her for her showroom was also not located within the trading area.
Issues: 1. Whether the private respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria regarding the location of the showroom as per the notice of appointment? 2. Whether the writ petitioner had a locus standi to challenge the appointment of the private respondent, given that she also failed to satisfy the same eligibility criteria? 3. Whether the Court could grant relief to the writ petitioner by moulding the reliefs claimed in the writ petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the private respondent did not satisfy the eligibility criteria regarding the location of the showroom as per the notice of appointment. 2. The Court held that the writ petitioner did not have a locus standi to challenge the appointment of the private respondent, as she also failed to satisfy the same eligibility criteria. 3. The Court held that it could not grant relief to the writ petitioner by moulding the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, as she did not have even a remote chance of being selected in case the appointment of the private respondent was recalled.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition without interfering with the impugned order, but directed the concerned respondents to select a suitable candidate for appointment as LPG distributor for Digha (U/R) by issuance of a fresh advertisement after expiry of the duration of the appointment of the private respondent No.3 in case the showroom of the private respondent is found to be located beyond the trading area. In case her showroom is found to be located within the trading area, her prayer for renewal should be considered as per the contract.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.
This Mandamus Appeal is directed against the judgment and/or order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 27th June, 2014 in W.P. No.65(W) of 2011, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.
Hence the instant Mandamus Appeal was filed by the writ petitioner. Dispute involved in the writ petition relates to the appointment of a LPG distributor at Digha (U/R) in the District of East Medinipur. Both the writ petitioner and the private respondent No.3 applied for grant of LPG distributorship at Digha (U/R) in terms of the notice for appointment of LPG distributor published in 16th September, 2007. Their credentials were assessed individually by the concerned authority. The writ petitioner got 89.50% and the private respondent got 92.67%.
The private respondent was, thus, selected for her appointment as LPG distributor at Digha. She was appointed as a distributor on 20th August, 2011. She is still continuing her business of distributorship. Duration of such distributorship is 5 years with an option of renewal. Long after the appointment of the private respondent as distributor of LPG gas at Digha, the writ petitioner complained against the selection of the private respondent as according to the writ petitioner, the private respondent failed to satisfy the condition contained in para 13.2 of the said notice of appointment. Para 13.2 of the said notice of appointment runs as follows:-
“Showroom as per standard layout can be constructed in a shop/land located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location for LPG distributorship and should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road”.
It was contended by the writ petitioner that the showroom which was offered by the private respondent was not located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location for LPG distributorship. This was the sum and substance of the complaint of the writ petitioner against the selection of the private respondent for her appointment as LPG distributor at Digha. To assess the substance of such contention of the writ petitioner, we have scrutinized the application submitted by the private respondent wherefrom it appears that the following land schedule was offered by the private respondent for her showroom:-
Mouza –Thikra, J.L N0.107
Plot No. Khatian No. Area
515 386 0.02
Before appointing the private respondent as distributor at Digha, the oil company made robing enquiry before various authorities, namely, District Magistrate of the concerned District, Block Land & Land Reforms Officer, Ramnagar-I, for ascertaining as to whether the land offered by the private respondent for her showroom is located within the area of operation, i.e., within Digha or not. To such query made by the oil company, the concerned authority informed the oil company that the land which was offered by the private respondent i.e., Mouza-Thikra, for showroom, is located within Digha i.e., within Digha Development Planning Area. After being confirmed that the land offered by the private respondent for showroom is located within Digha Development Planning Area, the private respondent was appointed as LPG Distributor at Digha.
The writ petitioner felt aggrieved. She started a robing enquiry from various authorities to ascertain as to whether the land offered by the private respondent for showroom, in fact, is located within the Digha Development Planning Area or not. To demonstrate that Mouza-Thikra where the private respondent has a plot of land which she offered for her showroom is not within Digha trading area, the writ petitioner heavily relied upon the information given by the Pradhan of the local Gram Panchayat to the writ petitioner’s learned Advocate vide letter dated 13th January, 2012. We have examined the information which was given by the Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat to the learned Advocate of the petitioner wherein the Mouzas whi
