The court affirmed that alternate land can be offered after the issuance of a Letter of Intent, even if not owned by the applicant at the application deadline, emphasizing judicial restraint in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to cancel the candidature of the private respondent in respect of the RGGLV Scheme including the Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) and to award RGGLV distributorship for Sinnibar area to the petitioner.

2. An advertisement was published in the Bengali Daily Newspaper namely “Anandabazar Patrika” on 31.08.2017 for the purpose of appointment of LPG Distributor in the State of West Bengal. Pursuant to the said advertisement Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for short “BPCL”) invited application for appointment of Distributor for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short “LPG”) at various locations under different categories. The last date of submission of such application was 18.10.2017.

3. Petitioner claims to have applied for LPG Distributorship in respect of Sinnibar within Sarishakhola Gram Panchayet, Keshpur Block in the District of West Medinipur. He submitted an online application on 26.09.2017. Petitioner was intimated by the authorities of BPCL that he qualified for draw of lottery which shall be held at the office of the authority of 06.06.2018. Pursuant to the said lottery, the private respondent was selected for grant of LPG Distributorship for the Sinnibar location. On September 20, 2018, the authorities of BPCL uploaded a list of eligible candidates for redraw for selection of LPG Distributorship. The petitioner came to learn that the previous selection of the private respondent was cancelled by the authorities of the BPCL and that a redraw would be held among the rest of the eligible candidates for the said location at an early date. However, for certain unknown reasons the redraw was kept in abeyance and the respondent authorities issued a LOI in favour of the private respondent.

4. Challenging the action of the authorities in issuing the Letter of Intent in favour of the private respondent the instant writ petition has been filed.

5. Mr. Banerjee learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that at the Field Verification Stage it was found that the land offered by the private respondent did not meet the requisite specifications for which the candidature of the private respondent stood cancelled and, thereafter, a list of eligible candidates for redraw was uploaded in the website of BPCL. He further contended that after cancellation of the candidature of the private respondent, an opportunity was granted to the private respondent to offer land which could have been granted as per the guidelines. He next contended that the Letter of Intent was issued on the offer of such alternate land but the private respondent subsequently offered another land which was purchased long after the last date of submission of the application as per the corrigendum. Mr. Banerjee contended that BPCL permitted the private respondent to construct the godown and store room on such land which was subsequently purchased which is contrary to the guidelines.

6. In support of the aforesaid contentions Mr. Banerjee placed reliance upon several clauses of the said brochure.

7. By referring to the definition of the expression “ownership” or “own” Mr. Banerjee submitted that the applicant must have title to the property offered for the purpose of godown or a registered lease deed having minimum five years of vali