Bombay High Court
Ratna Vyankat Kirtane vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ... on 18 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7800-DB
909.WP-725-2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 725 Of 2018
With
Civil Application No. 1776 Of 2025
Sow. Ratna w/o Vyankat Kirtane
Age : 46 years, Occupation-Household,
R/o. Sanskruti Niwas, Near Municipal
Corporation School, Vikas Nagar,
Barshi Road, Tq. and Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(A Government of India Enterprise)
LPG Business Headquarters,
Bharat Bhavan, 4 & 6,
Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate,
Mumbai-400 001.
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
(A Government of India Enterprise)
Territory Office and LPG Plant,
Chincholi (Kati), Post : Savaleshwar,
Tq. Mohol, Dist. Solapur,
Through its Territory Manager. .. Respondents
*****
* Mr. N.P. Patil - Jamalpurkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
* Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
*****
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ..
RESERVED ON : 12th MARCH 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 18th MARCH 2025
[1]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
JUDGMENT [Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with consent of the
parties. The litigating sides are agreeable for final disposal of the
petition, instead of considering Civil Application No.1776/2025
which is listed today.
2. The Petitioner is an aspirant of Bharat Gas LPG
Distributorship, whose claim is refused vide order dated
20.12.2017 issued by the Respondent No.2 on the ground that the
location offered by her does not conform to the stipulated location
in the advertisement.
3. Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste and she had applied
from the quota reserved for the said category in pursuance of the
advertisement issued by the Respondent on 29.09.2023. The
claim of the Petitioner was for location at Ambejogai road, Latur
which was advertised. Alongwith application, she submitted
registered lease deed securing a location on lease which was in-
consonance with the advertisement. She submitted distinct lease
deed for the locations for Showroom which was taken on lease at
Survey No.209, City Survey No.9880 at Netaji Nagar. Alongwith
requisite documents, she submitted application on 28.10.2013. A
draw of lots was held on 02.09.2017 and she was selected. After
complying the formalities, field verification Committee inspected
location of Godown and Showroom.
4. After the inspection by the Committee, it was noticed that
the location of Showroom was not at Ambejogai road, Latur as was
[2]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
represented by the Petitioner. Accordingly she was given
opportunity to offer alternate site. There was correspondence by
the Petitioner to convince Respondents. Later on she offered
alternate site. The Petitioner was notified vide letter dated
07.11.2007 that alternate site should be available and acquired by
the candidate as on last date of application. By impugned letter
dated 20.12.2017, the request of the Petitioner was turned down
for considering the land offered by her and she was held to be
ineligible for location was not in conformity with the
advertisement. Hence the Petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned Counsel Mr. M.P. Jamalpurkar submits that the
Respondents are proceeding with another round of draw of lots for
the selfsame location for which the Petitioner applied and draw
was actually scheduled on 03.01.2025 and thereafter same
location would be offered to the next candidate. Due to this
urgency, petition is to be heard finally at the admission stage.
6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that impugned
decision by letter dated 20.12.2017 by the Respondent No.2 is
arbitrary and perverse. He would submit that hyper technical
approach has been adopted by the Respondents. The location
offered by the Petitioner is in conformity with the location
stipulated by the advertisement and there was marginal distance
of 30 fit. The Petitioner was otherwise qualified and requisite
documents were placed on record. He would further submit that
even alternate location was also offered which was also
highhandedly rejected by the Respondents. It is impossible to
expect from the Petitioner to offer alternate location acquired by
[3]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
her as on the date of her application. Impugned action is totally
pedantic and liable to be interfered with. The Respondents failed
to take into account that the Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste
and she is a woman entrepreneur who is attempting to establish
herself.
7. Per contra Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni learned Advocate for the
Respondents submits that the rejection of the petitioner's
candidature is as per the dealship and marketing guidelines. It is
submitted that petitioner failed to produce on record any material
to show location offered is as per the advertisement. He would
further submit that the respondent/Corporation is the best judge
to decide the need and suitability of the candidature as per the
purpose sought to be achieved. The interference by the Writ Court
is not expected in such matters. He would submit that after
conducting objective scrutiny, the impugned order was passed. It
is further submitted that there is no bias against the petitioner as
such the decision is based on the report of field verification
Committee and letter of the Municipal Corporation given on
27.09.2017. Despite opportunity, petitioner failed to offer alternate
site.
8. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. The
dispute is pertaining to the location offered by the petitioner for
showroom. As per advertisement, the stipulated location is
Ambejogai Road, Latur. It is relevant to refer to the instructions
which are incorporated in the advertisement, the following is the
relevant extract :
[4]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
३. एलपीजी वितरकाच्या परिचालनासाठी आवश्यक असले ल्या मूलभूत सुविधा
अ. सिलिंडर्सकरीता ८००० किग्रॅ एलपीजीच्या साठवणीसाठी एलपीजी गोडाउन
सिलिंडर्समधील एलपीजीच्या साठवणीसाठी गोडाउन एलपीजी डिस्ट्रिब्यूटरकडे सिलिंडर्समधील
८००० कि. ग्रॅ. लपीजीच्या साठवणीसाठी चौफ कंट्रोलर ऑफ पेट्रोलियम अँड एक्स्प्लोज़िब्ज सेफ्टी
ऑर्गनायझेशन (PESO) द्वारा मान्यता व परवाना लाभले ले स्टोरेज गोडाउन असणे गरजेचे आहे.
अर्जदाराकडे स्वतःच्या मालकीच्या ह्या गोष्टी आवश्यक :
सिलिंडर्समधील ८००० किग्रॅ एलपीजीच्या साठवणीसाठी एलपीजी गोडाउन बांधण्याकरिता (संबंधित
राज्यात देऊ केले ल्या ठिकाणांच्या नगरपालिका / शहर/गाव हद्दीच्या पासून १५ किमी.च्या आत)
किमान २५ मीटर x ३० मीटर एवढ्या मोजमापांचा भूखंड असावा. गोडाउन बांधण्याकरिता २५ मीटर
X ३० मीटर एवढ्या किमान मोजमापांची पूर्त ता न करणारा भूखंड विचारात घेतला जाणार नाही.
किंवा
एलपीजीच्या साठवणीसाठी. (संबंधित राज्यात देऊ केले ल्या ठिकाणांच्या नगरपालिका/शहर/गाव
हद्दीच्या पासून १५ किमी. च्या आं त) ८००० कि.ग्रॅ. क्षमतेचे एलपीजी सिलिंडर स्टोरेज तयार गोडाउन
c-शोरूम
एलपीजी डिस्ट्रिब्यूटरशिपच्या जाहिरातीत निर्देश केल्यानुसार जाहिरातीतील ठिकाणी वा
वसाहतीमध्ये वसले ल्या दक ु ानात / जमिनीवर सर्वसाधारण आरांखळ्याच्या अनुसार ३
मीटर बाय ४.५ मीटर ह्या किमान मोजमापांची शोरूम तयार करावी लागेल आणि
लोकांना तिथे सहजपणे येण्याजाण्यासाठी साजेशा रस्त्याची सोय असावी लांगेल.
9. The petitioner had applied on 28.10.2023 from category for
scheduled caste. For offering the location, the lease deeds
executed by her were annexed to her application. It is evident that
the location offered by the petitioner i.e. part of Survey No.209,
City Survey No.9880 at Netaji Nagaris was not the exact location
stipulated in the advertisement. The site offered by the Petitioner
is not on the Ambejogai Road, but it is on different road from the
Ambejogai Road. The correspondence of the Petitioner and the
letter issued by Municipal Corporation dated 03.10.2017 would
disclose that location offered by the Petitioner was in its close
proximity. The instruction no.3 in the concluded part of the
advertisement also gives some leeway to the candidate for offering
[5]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
the location. It prescribes that the location as stipulated in the
advertisement or the site in the locality. The Petitioner can get
advantage of the instruction. The location offered by her is within
the vicinity of the location prescribed. We find that the respondent
adopted hyper technical in rejecting the application of the
Petitioner.
10. We have gone through affidavit-in-reply filed by the
respondents it has not been clarified as to what is the significance
of the location stipulated in the advertisement or what is the loss
or hardship likely to be caused to the respondents. It has not been
brought on record by the respondents that permitting the
Petitioner to operate the dealership from the location offered by
her would be detrimental to the safety, standards or business
activity or the overall interest of the respondent/Corporation. We
do not find that any serious prejudice would be caused to the
respondent/Corporation.
11. The Petitioner showed her readiness to offer alternate site by
making correspondence to the respondents, but the same was also
rejected stating that the alternate site should be shown to have
available on the day when the Petitioner applied. Practically it is
not possible for any candidate to offer the alternate site with such
a rider. Petitioner submitted application on 28.10.2013. The draws
were conducted on 04.09.2017 and thereafter the objection to the
location was raised on 07.11.2017. It is virtually impossible for the
Petitioner to offer any alternate site which conformed to the
alternate site having available on 28.10.2013. This approach of the
[6]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
respondent is pedantic and unreasonable.
12. We have not been shown any material or the instruction or
the norms by the respondent as to how the land offered by the
Petitioner is not in accordance with the stipulation in the
advertisement. The Respondent/Corporation is best judge to
decide the location to suit their purpose. While exercising our
powers under Article 226, we have limitation to substitute the
choice or the requirement of the respondent. However in the
present matter we find that arbitrary and unreasonable approach
has been adopted in rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. At the
cost of repetition, we hold that the place offered by the Petitioner
cannot be said to be extremely distant from the required location
so as to cause prejudice either to the respondent/Corporation or
the Petitioner while executing the dealership. It is argued by
Mr.Sanket Kulkarni that the new candidate is selected by drawing
of lots but nothing is placed on record to show allotment of
location to new candidate.
13. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Petitioner is lady
entrepreneur and she belongs to scheduled caste category. It is
useful to refer to decision of the coordinate bench in the matter of
Suvarna Shrikrishna Deore Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Ltd. and Anr., in Writ Petition No.1148/2022. The coordinate
bench was dealing with the Retail Outlet Dealership of the
selfsame respondent. Petitioner in that case was belonging to
scheduled caste and she had applied from reserved category for
Outlet Dealership and offered a location as prescribed by the
[7]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
advertisement. Later on the advertisement was found to be
defective because the State Highway No. 4 was advertised instead
of State Highway No.14. The coordinate bench held that the wrong
description in the advertisement did not affect the competition.
The aspirants of the location in question understood the exact
location and they did not express any reservation for the same. In
that context the in action on the part of the Corporation was held
to be arbitrary and the Writ Petition was allowed directing the
respondent/Corporation to allot the dealership. We preferred to
rely on following observations :
"18. We are conscious that a mere selection does not vest a candidate
with an indefeasible right of appointment/allotment. Ordinarily, the course
adopted by the Courts in Haroon A.K. (supra) and Mrs. Aruna Awatade
(supra) would be the rule. However, that does not give BPCL the licence
to act in an arbitrary manner. We can hardly ignore that the subject
dealership was reserved for two categories, viz. SC and PH. The
requirement of the advertisement was such that a site had to be offered
between Amalner and Chopda RHS, but within 5 Kms of Amalner. Anyone
having a plot of land beyond such 5 Kms distance of Amalner and
offering it would have been ineligible. Even for such a small stretch, we
find that in all 6 (six) applicants offered their candidature. As has been
noted above, 6 (six) is the average number of applications received by
BPCL for advertised locations in Maharashtra reserved for SC and PH.
That the petitioner satisfies both categories of reservation coupled with
the fact that she has obtained validation of her caste status are factors
which cannot be brushed aside from our consideration. Over and above
that, the petitioner is a woman. Article 15(3) of the Constitution enables
the State to make special provisions for women. Instead of taking a
decision not to carry forward the selection process, BPCL being an Article
12 authority ought to have taken recourse to Article 15(3) of the
Constitution and invoked its special power. By not taking recourse to the
same despite the enabling provision in this behalf, the process of decision-
making of BPCL most certainly suffers from illegality and arbitrariness
apart from irrationality which are accepted grounds of judicial review.
When the entire country has been initiating measures by designing
schemes for upliftment of women, BPCL's decision not to carry forward
the process resting on an insignificant typographical error is a retrograde
step and does not commend to us to be legally justifiable."
[8]
909.WP-725-2018.odt
14. The above observations of the coordinate bench, are
applicable to the present case. The petitioner is a woman
entrepreneur and in such a situation the respondent/Corporation
ought to have been pragmatic. We find that Petitioner has made
out a case and she is bound to succeed. We, therefore, pass
following order :
ORDER
a) The order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 is
quashed and set aside.
b) The Petitioner is held eligible for awarding Bharat Gas LPG
Distributorship at a place offered by her.
c) The respondent/Corporation shall undertake the procedure
and take appropriate steps to offer dealership to Petitioner as
early as possible.
d) Civil Application stands disposed of.
e) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
najeeb..
