Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R. Subhash Reddy and Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
Vikramsinh Anopji Chavda - Appellants
Vs.
Chief Regional Manager - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 790 of 2016 In Special Civil Application No. 13131 of 2016 With Civil Application No. 7969 of 2016 In Letters Patent Appeal No. 790 of 2016
Decided On : 01-12-2016
For the Appellants : Mr. S.I Nanavati, Senior Counsel with Mr. Devang J. Joshi.
For the Respondents: Mr. Asim J. Pandya, Mr. Anshin Desai, with Venu H. Nanavaty.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the guidelines for LPG distributorship, including the flexibility provided for offering alternate land and the importance of field verification of credentials.
Headnote:
LPG Distributorship - Appointment of LPG distributors under guidelines - Clause 3, Clause 10 of the guidelines - The court discussed the eligibility criteria for LPG distributorship, the requirement for basic facilities, and the field verification of credentials. The court highlighted the interpretation of the guidelines, the flexibility provided for offering alternate land, and the compliance with the selection criteria.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the appointment of respondent No. 5 as an LPG distributor, alleging that the respondent did not meet the eligibility criteria and had engaged in fraudulent activities. The court heard arguments from both parties and reviewed the facts and guidelines related to the appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that respondent No. 5 had complied with the guidelines and the instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. It concluded that there was no suppression of facts and that the appointment was made in accordance with the selection criteria.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility of the appointed distributor, compliance with the guidelines, and the validity of the appointment in light of the alleged fraudulent activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment of the distributor was in compliance with the guidelines and the instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. It emphasized the importance of field verification of credentials and the flexibility provided for offering alternate land.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the interim relief granted earlier was vacated. The court found no merit in the appellant's challenge to the appointment of the LPG distributor.
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against an order dated 05.08.2016 rendered by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13131 of 2016 by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.
2. The facts in nutshell for deciding the controversy involved in present appeal are as under:
2.1 The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‘HPCL’ for short), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (‘IOCL’ for short) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (‘BPCL’ for short) published a notice on 03.09.2013 for appointment of LPG distributors under various categories prescribed under the said notice. The appointment was subject to terms and conditions of the guidelines issued by the respondent HPCL which are known as guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributor, 2013. It is the case of the appellant - original petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) that Clause 3 of the said advertisement prescribed for basic facilities required for operation of LPG distributorship.
2.2 The petitioner applied for the said distributorship of LPG and on 12.08.2014 draw was held, wherein respondent No. 5 was selected. It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance of condition No. 3, respondent No. 5 submitted lease agreement dated 07.11.2013 for a period of 15 years for the purpose of showroom as well as godown. It is alleged that the land shown by respondent No. 5 was an agricultural land and therefore as per Clause 3 of the guidelines, respondent No. 5 could not have offered agricultural land. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 was not eligible in participating even at the draw stage.
2.3 It is alleged that respondent No. 5, in connivance with the officers of respondent HPCL, took advantage of administrative instructions dated 15.04.2015 issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Gas, under which it was intimated that a candidate should be given an opportunity to offer an alternate land and the guidelines should me made flexible. As per the say of the petitioner the said instructions cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect.
2.4 It is further stated that after the lucky draw held on 08.12.2014 and respondent No. 5 was selected, the original owner of the land bearing Survey No. 298/5, executed a sale deed on 04.04.2015 in favour of third party. However, respondent No. 5 did not bring the same to the notice of respondent HPCL. Thus, the respondent No. 5 has defrauded the respondent HPCL. It is further stated that on 20.05.2015, respondent HPCL issued a Letter of Intent in favour of respondent No. 5 after the Field Verification of Credential (‘FVC’ for short) was carried out by the officers of the respondent HPCL.
2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the Letter of Intent dated 20.05.2015 issued by respondent HPCL, respondent No. 5 submitted one more lease deed dated 05.06.2015 It is alleged that as per Clause 10 of the guidelines, after the submission of the documents with respondent HPCL, the FVC is required to be carried out by respondent HPCL. However, after submission of earlier document i.e. lease deed dated 07.11.2013 by respondent No. 5, FVC was carried out and on the basis of the said FVC Letter of Intent was issued on 20.05.2015 in favour of respondent No. 5. Such FVC was carried out on 05.06.2015 in respect of the land originally offered by respondent No. 5. However, the subsequent deed which was produced by the respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is alleged that the respondent HPCL had never carried out FVC which is a condition precedent before issuance of Letter of Intent.
2.6 It is stated that on 19.10.2015, respondent HPCL issued a letter of appointment in favour of respondent No. 5 appointing him as a distributor of LPG for Arvalli District at Modasa. When petitioner came to know, a Regular Civil Suit No. 111 of 2015 came to be filed with a prayer that the Letter of Intent dated 20.05.2015 issued in favour of respo
