J U D G M E NT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

THE APPEAL

1

1. An intra-court appellate judgment and order (“impugned judgment”, hereafter) of an Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta (“High Court”, hereafter), reversing the

2 judgment and order (“order”, hereafter) of a learned Single Judge, is called in question in the instant civil appeal. Vide the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2024.03.19

18:25:24 IST Reason:

1 dated 28th March, 2019

2 dated 25th January, 2019 impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal carried by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (“HPCL”, hereafter) from the order and set aside the same.

4 The Single Judge had, while allowing a writ petition of Mr. Tapas Kumar Das (“appellant”, hereafter), directed HPCL to proceed with

5 his candidature for LPG distributorship.

BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS

2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, lie in a narrow compass.

3. HPCL, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“IOCL”, hereafter) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a joint advertisement for LPG distributorships at several locations in the 31st August, 2017 editions of the Bangla dailies Bartaman and Anandabazar Patrika (“the Advertisement”, hereafter). Entries bearing SI. Nos. 1 to 607 in the Advertisement had 10 (ten) columns (“Part 1”, hereafter) and those from SI. No. 608 onwards had 9 (nine)

6 columns (“Part 2”, hereafter) . The header “Gram Panchayat” did not feature in Part 2 and, hence, had 1 (one) column less than Part 1.

4. Parts 1 and 2 of the Advertisement with the headers and to the extent relevant for a decision on this appeal, as per the English translation placed before us, are set out hereunder:

3 M.A.T. No. 255 of 2019 with C.A.N. No. 1818 of 2019.

4 W.P. 1595 (W) of 2019. 5 Liquified Petroleum Gas.

6 The Advertisement, by itself, has not been split into Parts 1 and 2; the same has been

done here for ease of reference.

Part 1

Part 2

5. Interested in obtaining an LPG distributorship qua Sl. No.624 reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste community, i.e., ‘Location’ and ‘Block’ Haripal in the district of Hooghly, the appellant submitted an online application for the same under the ‘SC’ category on 16th October, 2017. The appellant’s application was found to be in order, whereupon he was called upon to participate in the ensuing computerised draw of lots for selection for the distributorship for Haripal. Fortune smiled on the appellant and he emerged as winner in the draw of lots. HPCL informed the appellant vide a letter dated 4th November, 2018 that he had been declared successful and also that he was required to comply with the instructions contained therein. Diligently, the appellant deposited a demand draft of Rs. 30,000/- with HPCL and submitted relevant land documents in compliance with the letter dated 4th November, 2018.

6. One Sujoy Kumar Das (“added respondent”, hereafter) lodged a complaint dated 9th November, 2018 with HPCL questioning the appellant’s candidature on the basis that the land offered by him

7 for the showroom was in mouza Gopinagar and not in mouza Haripal. Incidentally, the added respondent had participated i