Back
2018 Supreme(HP) 2269
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANJAY KAROL, AJAY MOHAN GOEL, JJ.
Bhupesh Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 383 of 2018
Decided On : 11-09-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Raman Sethi.
For the Respondents: Ms. Vandana Mishra, Mr. Rajesh Sharma.
Compliance with specific eligibility criteria, such as ownership or registered lease deed for land, is essential for consideration in LPG distributorship applications.
Headnote:
LPG Distributorship - Rejection of Candidature - Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors - Clause 1 (w), Clause 6, Clause 8 (n) - The court discussed the provisions of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, particularly focusing on the requirement of ownership or registered lease deed for the land for showroom construction. The court emphasized the distinction between a rent agreement and a lease deed, highlighting the specific eligibility criteria for LPG distributorship and the consequences of non-compliance with the guidelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner applied for LPG Distributorship and was initially declared as a successful candidate, but his candidature was later rejected due to discrepancies in the land details provided for showroom construction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was justified as he failed to meet the eligibility criteria specified in the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for LPG Distributorship based on discrepancies in the land details provided for showroom construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the distinction between a rent agreement and a lease deed is crucial, and non-compliance with the specific eligibility criteria rendered the petitioner ineligible for LPG distributorship.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.
1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“A. Quash and set aside the letter dated 9.2.2018, Annexure-P5 rejecting the candidature of the petitioner being illegal, arbitrary, biased and unconstitutional;
B. Quash and set aside all other consequential acts and deeds including the forfeiture of the amount of deposit of Rs.40,000/- which has been done pursuant to issuance of Annexure-P5;
C. Direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner in terms of letter dated 10.1.2018 Annexure-P4 and issue letter of intent of the petitioner being the successful candidate for allotment of the LPG Distributorship for location Nerua, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla (H.P.);
D. Direct the respondents to produce entire records of this case for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court;
E. Direct the respondents to pay costs of this litigation;
F. Such other and further relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”
2. Case of the petitioner is that respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for LPG Distributorship (Gramin) at Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla vide advertisement dated 13.08.2017. He applied for the same, as he fulfilled the criteria laid down in the advertisement. Further as per the petitioner, vide Annexure P-4, dated 10.01.2018, he was informed by the respondent-Corporation that he had been declared as successful candidate in the draw of lots, which was conducted on 09.01.2018 for selection of LPG Distributor at the subject location. His grievance is that thereafter vide impugned communication Annexure P-5, dated 09.02.2018, his candidature has been rejected on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner in the course of Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) could not be considered for showroom, as the petitioner has executed a rent agreement on 12.09.2017 for a period of 15 years with Sh. Rajinder Sood, resident of VPO & Tehsil Nerwa, District Shimla against a building measuring 12 X 10 meters instead of registered lease deed for show room for a period of 15 years. As per the petitioner, rejection of his candidature on the ground so mentioned in the impugned letter is arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as there is no difference between “rent agreement” and “lease agreement”. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed this petition praying for the reliefs already mentioned hereinabove.
3. In its reply filed by the respondent-Corporation, it has justified its decision by submitting that candidature of the petitioner was rejected as in the course of Field Verification, it was found that land details/documents furnished by the petitioner with regard to LPG show room were incorrect. As per the respondents, the land upon which the LPG show room was proposed to be constructed, was neither owned by the petitioner nor the same was taken by way of a registered lease by him from its owner for a period of 15 years, as was contemplated in Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors (Annexure P-2).
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents appended with the petition.
5. Clause 1 (w) of the definitions of Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors reads as under:
“1 (w). “Ownership” or “Own” for godown/showroom for SheheriVitrak, RurbanVitrak, GraminVitrak and Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak Type of Distributorship means having:
(a) Ownership title of the property.
(b) Registered lease deed having minimum 15 yrs of valid lease period commencing on any day from the date of advertisement up to the last date of submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any).
Additionall
