Back
2024 Supreme(P&H) 8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
Deepika - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Others - Respondents
CWP- 9740, 4567, 3023, 7273-2021
Decided On : 05-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Ranbir Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. N.K. Vashisht, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
Violation of lease deed terms and conditions and lack of demarcation of land for distributorship applications.
Headnote:
LPG Distributorship - Lease Deed Violation - March 2015 Guidelines - Clause 6.1 (vii) & (viii) of the Brochure - Chandra Bhoosan Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought setting aside the rejection of her candidature for LPG distributorship due to violation of lease deed terms and conditions. The petitioner had applied for distributorship using a piece of land leased to multiple persons, leading to a lack of demarcation and violation of the Brochure guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's lease deed with the owner of the land was in violation of the Brochure guidelines as there was no specific demarcation of land for the purpose of godown and showroom. The court also referenced a similar case upheld by the Allahabad High Court, where rejection of candidature due to the same piece of land being leased to different persons was upheld.
Issues: Violation of lease deed terms and conditions, lack of demarcation of land, multiple applications for distributorship using the same piece of land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's actions were in clear violation of the terms and conditions of the Brochure, and the case was squarely covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court.
Final Decision: All the petitions were dismissed as the court found that the petitioner's actions were in violation of the lease deed terms and conditions, and the rejection of her candidature for LPG distributorship was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Jagmohan Bansal, J.
1. By this common order, CWP-9740-2021, CWP-4567-2021, CWP-3023-2021 and CWP-7273-2021 are disposed of as issue involved in all the petitions is common. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from CWP-9740-2021.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India is seeking setting aside the order dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P-6) and Final Selection List dated 07.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.11.2013 applied for distributorship of the LPG. The petitioner applied for different locations by way of different applications. The petitioner was selected in the draw of lots, however, her candidature has been rejected vide the communication dated 08.12.2018 (Annexure P-6) on the ground that the land offered is leased to various persons and it is in violation of conditions of the Brochure. The relevant extracts of the communication dated 08.12.2018 read as under:-
“Please refer to your application (serial no. DEL/LAL/KARNAL (OGP)/08 on the captioned subject. As per the MOPNG letter dated 25.02.2016, for locations which are due for draw/redraw scrutiny of application forms with respect to ownership of land has to be done in accordance with guidelines of March 2015. In the said guldelines it is clearly stipulated that the same piece of land for godown/show room cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular location.
We regret to Inform you that your candidature has not been found to be eligible for LPG distributorship due to following:-
1- LAND FOR GODOWN: khasra No. 2842,2845,13370/2850,13372/2850,251,1,11 at Karnal owned by Pinkl.
Land leased with common doc. No. 7520 dt.09.12.2013 leased to Kanwl Singh, Yogesh Kumar Mallk, Deepika & Ajay Kumar.
2- LAND FOR SHOW ROOM:-Land falls at vill. Kallash, Karnal owned by Sahbboo Devi W/O Jagdish Singh. Leased site, common lease doc. No.7521 dt. 09.12.2013 leased to Sunil Kumar and Yogesh Kumar Malik. The same is in breach of selection guideline of March 2015 in all pending cases. Accordingly your candidature is rejected herewith.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that lessor had executed lease deed in favour of more than one persons, however, only one of them had applied, thus, there was no violation of terms and conditions of the Brochure as contemplated in the 2015 Guidelines.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that it is factually incorrect that out of different lessees only one i.e. petitioner had applied for the distributorship. The lessor executed lease deed with respect to same piece of land with 10 persons and most of them applied for the distributorship. This practice was adopted by petitioner and her associates in respect of different locations. The object of the petitioner was to make sure allotment by way of filing multiple applications with respect to the same land.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The categoric stand of the respondent is that the petitioner had entered into lease deed with the owner of the land who had executed lease deed with 10 persons and most of them had applied for the same location and on the basis of same piece of land. The lease deed was in favour of 10 persons and there was no specific dimension of the land, thus, there was violation of Clause 6.1 (vii) & (viii) of the Brochure.
8. The petitioner was supposed to have plot of land of minimum dimension of 25m x 30m for construction of godown. The petitioner was further supposed to have showroom of specific dimensions. The petitioner was not having land of specific dimension, thus, lease deed itself was faulty and could not be considered for allotment of LPG distributorship. The relevant extracts of the Brochure are reproduced as under:-
“(vii) Should own as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertise
