The court established that misrepresentation, retrospective changes in eligibility criteria, and unfair actions by public authorities are impermissible and discriminatory.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated January 18, 2018 passed in W.P. No. 11124 (W) of 2017, the writ petitioner (hereafter the appellant) has presented this intra-court appeal. Instead of hearing the stay application separately, we decided to hear out the appeal by consent of parties.

2. The case run by the appellant in the writ petition was that he applied for LPG distributorship under G.P. category pursuant to an advertisement published in the ‘Ananda Bazar Patrika’ on September 9, 2012 against the vacancy at Jamalpur Block in the District of Burdwan. The respondent no. 9 also applied for the LPG distributorship against the same vacancy. The appellant and the respondent no. 9 were both found eligible and accordingly, the Territory Manager (LPG), Durgapur Territory Office of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) instructed them to participate in the Draw-On-Lots, to be held on May 11, 2013. At the Draw-On-Lots the respondent no. 9 was declared as the selected candidate. Subsequently, it came to the knowledge of the appellant that the land offered by the respondent no. 9 to construct the godown was not suitable for construction thereof as the proposed land was recorded as a ‘Barga’ land. The BPCL authorities permitted the respondent no. 9 to offer an alternative land for construction of godown after the issuance of the ‘Letter of Intent’ (LOI), but the said land was taken on lease much after the date of submission of application and was thus violative of Clause 7.1 (VI) of the guidelines published in the month of April, 2011 by the three leading oil companies. The appellant alleged that the LOI was issued in favour of respondent no. 9, although, he was not eligible to be awarded LPG distributorship as the land offered initially was encumbered and was not converted from ‘Sali’ land to non-agricultural land.

3. Challenging the aforementioned action of the BPCL, the appellant presented W.P. 11124 (W) of 2017 and, inter alia, prayed for cancellation and setting aside of the LOI as also the approval for offer of alternate land granted in favour of the respondent no. 9 by the BPCL. The appellant contended that the last date for submission of the application form was October 12, 2012 but the alternate land was leased out to the respondent no. 9 by a deed of lease dated March 16, 2017. The appellant further contended that the Territory Manager LPG Durgapur, BPCL on an earlier occasion by a letter dated March 3, 2015 disallowed the request of one Supravat Ghosh to provide alternate land for the proposed LPG godown and showroom at Satgachia, District Burdwan. The appellant alleged collusion between the BPCL authorities and the respondent no. 9 and consequent favouritism shown to the respondent no. 9 by allowing him to offer alternate land, contrary to the provisions of the guidelines of April 2011.

4. The respondent no. 6, Territory Manager Durgapur, BPCL, filed a report in the form of an affidavit and, inter alia, contended that the guidelines dated April 2011, were issued in supersession of all previous guidelines and the award of LPG distributorship in this case was governed by the said guidelines. That out of 6 applicants for the vacancy in Jamalpur, the appellant and the respondent no. 9 were found eligible, and in the draw, the respondent no. 9 was selected. During Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) no irregularity was found with regard to the lease of the land provided for construction of godown, offered by the respondent no. 9. The land also satisfied the specifications mentioned in the said guidelines. Accordingly, the LOI was issued to the respondent no. 9 by letter no. DGP.OMP.Jamalpur, dated February 24, 2014. Thereafter it was found that the land offered by the respondent no. 9 was classified as ‘Barga’ land and the respondent no. 9 was asked to take steps for conversion of the said land. According to the said respondent the land was cleared during (FVC) on the basis of the registered