IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that adherence to procedural guidelines and prior court orders is essential in administrative decisions regarding distributorship licenses.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (respondent No. 2) invited applications for LPG Distributorship under Indian Oil Corporation Limited in a local newspaper for the location of Mouja, Dundipur under Block Horkhali, PS Sutahata, District Purba Medinipur.

2. The present petitioner applied for the same. Initially a draw of lots was held wherein the present petitioner was selected as a successful candidate amongst the other applicants. The petitioner was asked to make initial deposits as well as to furnish the documents relating to the land for prepared godown and show room within the subject location. Petitioner complied the same but it was intimated by the respondent authority that the land offered for construction of LPG show room is not within the subject location; so, he was requested to provide any alternate land within the subject location for construction of show room. Accordingly, petitioner submitted deeds and documents regarding alternative land proposed show room within the subject location. After Field Verification Committee (FVC) of the respondent No. 2 has rejected the alternative land on the ground that the lease deed in respect of land in question was registered after the final date of submission of application.

3. Challenging the said order the present petitioner approached this court. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in WP 20029(W) of 2018 as passed the order on 11.01.2019 directing the respondent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent authority is further directed, till such decision is taken and communicated to the petitioner the grant of distributorship in respect of the location in question shall be remained stayed.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the passing of a specific order of this court the respondent authority by violating the direction of this court did not consider the representation of the present petitioner by giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and more so they have issued the distributorship license in favour of the private respondent No. 6.

5. Hence this writ petition was filed seeking necessary direction upon the respondent authority.

Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the act and action of the respondent authority is liable to be quashed on following grounds.

Firstly, action of the authority regarding issuance of license by violating the order of this court is nullity in the eye of law.

Secondly, the licence issued in favour of the private respondent No. 6 is violative to the mandate and provision of Brochure of Unified Guidelines of Oil Companies for the selection of LPG Distributors.

6. The respondent No. 2 filed a report in the form of affidavit against the writ petition. Learned Advocate Manabendra Singha Yadav appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to 4. submits that initially petitioner was selected in draw of lots; during field verification, petitioner found ineligible in as much as the land offered for show room was not found to be at the advertised location. The petitioner was asked to submit alternative land, in response to the same, petitioner submitted a registered lease deed dated 28th June, 2018 which was registered after the last date of submission of application i.e. 26th September, 2017. As the alternate land offered by the petitioner was found not meeting the eligibility criteria, thus his candidature was rejected. However, the present petitioner approached this court in a writ petition and wherein the said writ petition was disposed of on 11th of January, 2019.

7. The Learned Advocate for the respondent no. 2 submits that the order dated 11th January 2019 was not received by the office of the respondent No. 2 company, thus the personal hearing of the present petitioner was not conducted during the stipulated time as mentioned in the said