Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dayal Ch. Paul, S/o Sri Santosh Paul – Appellant
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Respondent
WP(C) 8669 of 2019
Decided on : 13-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Guidelines for selection of LPG Distributorship - Appointment of Distributorship - Petitions framed on basis of Guidelines but taking into account period during which advertisement was issued and selection process, relevant guidelines for advertised location in question would be Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships – It appears from records that apart from Petitioner and Respondent No.4, there were 12 other eligible applicants - Para 26.
Finding of the Court: Petitioner strenuously argued that in view of setting aside of Letter of Intent and Letter of Appointment, Court should direct respondent authorities to issue Letter of Intent in favour of Petitioner - Court is of opinion that submission is totally misconceived, inasmuch as, Clause 11.4 of Guidelines stipulates that in case there are more than one eligible applicant, selection of LPG Distributorship will be done through computerized draw of lots from eligible applicants for that location - It appears from records that apart from Petitioner and Respondent No.4, there were 12 other eligible applicants - Question of issuing a direction to Respondent IOCL authorities to issue a Letter of Intent and Letter of Appointment to Petitioner do not arise - It is also to take note of that other applicants are not parties to writ petition and as such, such directions would be contrary to constitutional norms - Respondent No.4 would not come within ambit of List 1 of Clause 11.6 of Guidelines and as such draw held was contrary to Clause 11.6 of Guidelines and consequent selection of respondent No.4 and on basis of which Letter of Intent as well as Letter of Appointment were issued are set aside and quashed.
Result: Petitions disposes of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mrs. N. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P. Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation as well as it officials. I have also heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 and Mr. N. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
2. Taking into account the contextual semblance as well as the paramateria legal issues involved in both the writ petitions, both are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.
3. The facts of the instant case is that on 12.06.2018, an advertisement was published in Newspaper namely “Axomiya Pratidin” by the IOCL authority, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum & Corporation Ltd. jointly for appointment of the LPG Distributorship in different places within the State of Assam. A perusal of the said advertisement, which was placed before this Court during the hearing shows that the said advertisement pertained to 33 locations wherein applications were invited for appointment of Distributorship. The present writ petition relates to the appointment of Distributorship in the location Jamlai, village Kalyanpur under Mahakuma Nagarbera, part Chamria within the District of Kamrup and the category under which the same had to be applied was reserved for OBC candidates. From a perusal of the said advertisement, it further reveals that the last date of submission of the said form was on 13.07.2018. The said advertisement also refers to Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG Distributorship. It is relevant to mention that though the writ petitions have been framed on the basis of the Guidelines of 2016 but taking into account the period during which the said advertisement was issued and the selection process, the relevant guidelines for the advertised location in question would be the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships of October 2017.
4. Chapter 10 of the said Guidelines refers to the Process of Selection. In the said chapter, as to how the advertisement is to be issued, the publicity as regards the advertised location, the procedure for selection etc. have been mentioned. Clause 10.6 of the said Guidelines stipulates that the applications cannot be submitted after the specified closing date and the time mentioned in the advertisement as communicated by the Oil Companies. In other words, as per the advertisement, the last date for submission of the application was 13.07.2018. It was further mentioned that no extension of time would be entertained.
5. Clause 10.4.2 is very relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute and the same is quoted hereinuner:
Applicants should submit only one application for one location. In case more than one application is received from an individual, all the applications would be clubbed together and treated as one application. In such cases, application fees received against all other applications would be forfeited.”
A perusal of the above Clause would show that the applicant should submit only one application for one location. It has been further mentioned that in case more than one application is received from an individual, all the applications would be clubbed together and treated as one application. In such cases, application fees received against all other applications would be forfeited.
6. Chapter 11 is a Chapter pertaining to Draw of Lots. Clause 11.4 stipulates that in case there are more than one eligible applicant, selection of LPG Distributorship for an advertised location will be done through computerized draw of lots from the eligible applicants for that location. Clause 11.5 relates to certain Inter-se priority which are given in case of Sheheri Vitrak, Rurban Vitrak and Gramin Vitrak locations reserved under Government Personnel (GP) categories.
7. Clause 11.6 is vital for the purpose of the instant disput
Clause 11.4 of Guidelines stipulates that in case there are more than one eligible applicant, selection of LPG Distributorship will be done through computerized draw of lots from eligible applicants ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'residence' in the context of Clause 15(c) of the guidelines for L.P.G. distributor selection, emphasizing the requirement of....
Section 105 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 read with Section 17(1)(d) and Section 49 of Registration Act, 1908 which specifically mandates that a lease deed for a period exceeding one year is comp....
Adherence to specified eligibility criteria, particularly the requirement of a registered lease deed for the plot of land offered for LPG distributorship, is crucial for consideration of candidature.
In the absence of requisite foundational facts to seek disqualification or cancellation of the LPG distributorship awarded in favour of the respondent no. 6 it is not open for the petitioners to cont....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of meeting the eligibility criteria, particularly the requirement of ownership or registered lease deed for the plot of land offer....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
