The court emphasized the need for caution in entertaining a writ petition in contractual matters and highlighted the importance of public interest in deciding whether to intervene.

JUDGMENT :

1. In response to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper jointly by three oil companies, viz, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), the petitioner applied for obtaining Gramin LPG distributorship at Jagatballapur, Gram Panchayat Jagatballapur-2 under Jagatballapur Block, District Howrah in the Open Category.

2. The petitioner qualified and participated in the online computerised draw of lots but in the said draw of lots none of the participants was successful. A fresh redraw was conducted wherein the petitioner and the private respondent Smt. Moumita Ghosh both participated. The private respondent was declared successful in the open category.

3. According to the petitioner, IOCL violated the conditions as laid down in the Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Unified Guidelines’, and permitted the private respondent to offer alternate land. The land offered by the private respondent ought not to have been accepted by IOCL as the said land was registered in her favour long after the last date of making the application.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that there is no scope for offering alternate land, twice. The private respondent initially offered land which was not accepted by IOCL. The private respondent was directed to offer alternate land. The said land was also not suitable as there was no motorable road. The private respondent gave an undertaking to offer land which was in accordance with the criteria as laid down in the Unified Guidelines. Thereafter, IOCL permitted the private respondent to offer a separate land which was not permissible in accordance with the Unified Guidelines.

5. It has been submitted that the private respondent has actually played fraud upon IOCL in obtaining the letter of appointment in her favour.

6. The petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the Unified Guidelines in support of his contention that IOCL acted in deviation of the conditions as laid down in the Unified Guidelines.

7. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent IOCL to cancel the selection of the private respondent and to conduct a redraw for appointment of Gramin LPG distributorship under open category.

8. The private respondent opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioner in the writ petition and the petitioner is trying to make out a case out of the averments made by IOCL in its affidavit-in-opposition.

9. It has been submitted that as per the Unified Guidelines there is a provision for appeal. Had the petitioner been aggrieved by the act of IOCL to issue appointment letter in favour of the private respondent, then the petitioner ought to have taken steps for preferring the appeal before the appellate authority in terms of the Unified Guidelines.

10. It has been submitted that the private respondent has already invested huge sum of money in making construction for setting up of the LPG godown and showroom and the Court ought not to interfere in this matter, at this stage.

11. It has further been submitted that the land offered by the private respondent was in accordance with the guidelines and the criteria as laid down in the Unified Guidelines and accordingly, IOCL accepted the same and issued letter of allotment in her favour.

12. Prayer has been made for rejection of the writ petition.

13. IOCL has filed a report before this Court wherein it has been mentioned that in the first draw of lots held on 8th June, 2018 amongst the eligible candidates, the candidate who became successful failed to satisfy the eligibility conditions during the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC). As such, the candidature of the successful candidate was rejected and redraw was conducted amongst the remaining candidates on 28th December, 2018.

14. The petitioner and the private respondent both