Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 4596
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Ranjan Sharma, J
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
LPA No. 09 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Mr. Rajiv Rai, Mr. Diwan Singh Negi
For the Respondents: Mr. B.N. Misra, Ms. Vandana Misra
The court emphasized flexibility in eligibility criteria for LPG distributorships, allowing for rectification of discrepancies in land offers.
Headnote:(A) Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors - Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) - The appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition regarding eligibility for LPG distributorship due to land disqualifications. The court emphasized flexibility in guidelines allowing for alternate land offers if initial land is unsuitable. (Paras 9, 10, 28, 33)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - The court noted that strict adherence to eligibility criteria must be balanced with the opportunity for applicants to rectify discrepancies, particularly when changes in circumstances arise. (Paras 26, 30, 32)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was selected in a draw for LPG distributorship but faced rejection due to the presence of overhead electric wires on the offered land, leading to a series of legal challenges over eligibility and verification processes.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the appellant's application was not justified given the removal of the overhead wires and the availability of alternate land that met the eligibility criteria.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the rejection based on land suitability and the applicability of flexible guidelines for alternate land offers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant should be allowed to rectify eligibility issues and that the rejection was inconsistent with the flexible policies adopted by the oil companies. The need for a fresh FVC was emphasized.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the prior rejection of the application was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's observations on the necessity of a fresh fvc. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 32) |
| 2. final decision to allow the appeal and re-evaluate eligibility. (Para 33) |
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
The present Letters Patent Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 27.12.2024, rendered by the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 1910 of 2020, titled Vijay Kumar versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Relevant facts, shorn of all unnecessary details, may be noticed.
3. Apparently, three renowned companies, namely Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., jointly invited applications vide public notice dated 13.08.2017 for allotment/grant of dealership of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (for short as “LPG”) at variouus places. Petitioner/appellant herein applied for Dharamopur (Rural) District Mandi, H.P. being eligible for allotment oCf LPG distributorship on 01.09.2017 (Annexure P- 6), which was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category. In the draw of lots, which took place on 11.01.2018 petitioner was found eligible for selection of LPG distributorship of Bharat Petroleum Corporation at Dharmapur District Mandi, HP and vide communication dated 12.01.2018, respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., intimated the petitioner with regard to his selection and asked him to deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- and submit relevant documents. Accordingly, he submitted the relevant documents and requisite fee.
4. As is evident from the Brochure/Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors prepared by all the three oil companies in the month June 2017 (Annexure P-4), appended with the Writ petition, Field Verification of Credentials (hereinafter referred to as the "FVC" for short) was required to be done by the Committee officials. Thus, for this purpose, an official of respondent/BPCL visited the location identified and offered by the petitioner. On 17.1.2018 (Annexure P-17), Ravinder Singh, Field Officer of BPCL-respondent No.3 visited the location of the petitiouner for field verification and found that there were over hoanging high tension electric wires passing through the plCot. While conducting inspection, respondent No.3, allegedly got prepared the rough site plan of area measuring 21x26 meters out of total plot measuring 70x30 meters, offered by petitioner from a revenue official, i.e., Patwari of the area concerned. Allegedly, the said respondent No.3 also told the petitioner herein to write communication dated 18.1.2018 (Annexure P-11 Colly) to FVC committee, submitting that he has land to offer for Godown in his own name having dimensions of 21x26 meters at the advertised location i.e. village Dharampur. In the aforesaid communication, while admitting that he does not have any alternative land to offer for Godown at advertised location owned/registered lease in the name of his wife, parents and grandparents, petitioner/appellant undertook to take up the matter with the Electricity Department for removal of the electricity line passing through the plot offered by him for Godown. Though petitioner after his having signed communication dated 18.1.2018, thought that alternate land offered by him will be considered and accepted and, he would be issued letter of intent, but respondent- BPCL, vide communication dated 3u0.1.2018/07.02.2018 (Annexure P-13) intimated the petitiooner/appellant that he has not been found eligible for LPGC distributorship.
5. After issuance of the aforesaid communication as such respondent No.3 allegedly started sending communications for the computerized redraw among the remaining candidates, as such, on 28.02.2018. Petitioner then filed CWP No. 384 of 2018, titled Vijay Kumar v. Union of India, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-3), by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while ordering that order passed by the Corporat
