SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 16

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, CJ, BISWANATH RATH, J
Niranjan Kisan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 1339 OF 2018



For Petitioner(s):M/s. Jashobanta Dash & B.P. Panda, Advocates
For Opp. Party/Parties:Mr. M.K. Pradhan, CGC (For O.P. No.1), Mr. Srinivas Patnaik, Advocate (For O.P. Nos.2 to 5)

Eligibility criteria for distributorship must be met by the application deadline; courts cannot relax these conditions post-factum.

Headnote:(A) Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors - Clauses 15.7 and 16.4 - Challenge to rejection of candidature for LPG distributorship on grounds of not providing suitable land - The petitioner’s application was rejected post-selection due to discrepancies in land lease documentation - Eligible criteria were not met as registration of lease deed was not completed before the last application date - Supreme Court's decisions clarify that ownership must be confirmed prior to selection and conditions are not directory when stipulated as mandatory. (Paras 6, 10, 12)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Consideration - High Court does not possess the discretion to relax eligibility criteria under Article 226 of the Constitution - Allowing such could set a discriminatory precedent against other applicants. (Para 10)

Table of Content
1. arguments for meeting eligibility criteria and previous selection conditions. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
2. court's view on eligibility, judicial discretion, and prior case references. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. establishment of mandatory criteria for land ownership regarding distributorship. (Para 10 , 12)
4. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

07.12.2020

Per: Mohammad Rafiq, CJ.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Niranjan Kisan challenging the order dated 28th December, 2017 (Annexure-7) passed by the opposite party No.4-Territory Manager, Sambalpur LPG Territory, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., whereby the candidature of the petitioner for allotment of GAS LPG Distributorship for the location at Teleibani, Bargadia in Deogarh district has been rejected on account of his failure to provide a suitable land for LPG Godown.

2. The facts of the case are that in the month of July, 2016 the opposite party No.1 issued Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG Distributors. On 16.11.2016, an advertisement was published in daily Odia “The Sambad” for selection of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Distributors in the State of Odisha by fixing 16.12.2016 as the last date of submission of application. In the advertisement, applications were invited for LGP distributorship of three different companies namely; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., giving details of distributorship areas, as well as reservation of different categories. Subsequently, a corrigendum was published extending the last date of submission of application to 03.02.2017. Pursuant to the above advertisement, the petitioner, being a Scheduled Tribe candidate, submitted his application for Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Gramin LPG Distributorship of Tileibani, Baragadia, Bileighati under Deogarh District. On receipt of the application, the opposite parties scrutinized the documents of the petitioner along with those or the other candidates. The opposite party No.3-Head LPG DSB, Bhubaneswar by letter dated 02.06.2017 informed the petitioner that he was selected by draw of lottery for Gramin LPG Distributorship in terms of Clauses 14 and 15 of the Guideline issued by the opposite party No.1 for selection of distributorship. The petitioner was therefore asked to be personally present along with photo identity card issued by any department of Government at 11 am on 16.06.2017 at the office of opposite party-Bharat Petroleum Corporation, LPG Filling Plant-33, Industrial Estate, Khurda. Accordingly, the petitioner attended.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as per Clause 15.7 of the Guideline, the petitioner deposited 10% of the security money @ Rs.20,000/- by way of demand draft on 21.06.2017. The opposite party No.5 on 09.07.2017 by an e-mail message informed to the petitioner to produce certain documents within the stipulated time for Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) as per Clause 16 of the guideline. The petitioner on 13.07.2017 submitted the following documents as per e-mail of the opposite party No.5:

“i) Notarized Affidavit by the applicant as per Appendix-I (attached, page 56, 57)

ii) Self Attested Copy of Proof of date of birth i.e. – School Leaving Certificate/Birth Certificate/Passport/PAN Card

iii) Self Attested Copy of Proof of educational qualification i.e. – Self Attested Copy of Certificate of passing X Std. or equivalent.

iv) Notarized Affidavit as per Appendix-2/Notarized Affidavit as per Appendix-4 if applicable. (attached, page 58, 59)

v) Self Attested Copy of Land documents : Documents pertaining to land/godown/showroom in the name of applicant or member of ‘family unit’. Registered Sale Deed/Gift Deed/Lease Deed (15 yrs minimum/Mutation and Government record.

vi) Notarized Affidavit by the applicant as per Appendix- P1B (attached)

vii) Self Attested Copy of P1A (attached)”

On 01.08.2017, the opposite party No.5 issued a letter to the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top