Rashbehari Saha vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited & ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2566 Cal

                          IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                            Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                    Appellate Side

Present :-   Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha


                                WPA No. 20821 of 2021

                                      Rashbehari Saha

                                              Vs.

                          Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors.


For the writ petitioner          :-     Mr.   Debabrata Saha Roy, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Pingal Bhattacharyya, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Subhankar Das, Adv.
                                        Mr.   Neil Basu, Adv.

For the respondent no. 9         :-     Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Sanjib Seth, Adv.

For IOCL                         :-     Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, Adv.

Heard on                         :-     05.04.2022

Judgment on                      :-     06.05.2022


Amrita Sinha, J.:-

In response to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper jointly by

three oil companies, viz, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL), Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Limited (BPCL) and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL),

the petitioner applied for obtaining Gramin LPG distributorship at Jagatballapur,

Gram Panchayat Jagatballapur-2 under Jagatballapur Block, District Howrah in the

Open Category.

The petitioner qualified and participated in the online computerised draw of

lots but in the said draw of lots none of the participants was successful. A fresh

redraw was conducted wherein the petitioner and the private respondent Smt.

Moumita Ghosh both participated. The private respondent was declared successful

in the open category.

According to the petitioner, IOCL violated the conditions as laid down in the

Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors, hereinafter

referred to as the 'Unified Guidelines', and permitted the private respondent to offer

alternate land. The land offered by the private respondent ought not to have been

accepted by IOCL as the said land was registered in her favour long after the last

date of making the application.

It is the further case of the petitioner that there is no scope for offering

alternate land, twice. The private respondent initially offered land which was not

accepted by IOCL. The private respondent was directed to offer alternate land. The

said land was also not suitable as there was no motorable road. The private

respondent gave an undertaking to offer land which was in accordance with the

criteria as laid down in the Unified Guidelines. Thereafter, IOCL permitted the

private respondent to offer a separate land which was not permissible in accordance

with the Unified Guidelines.

It has been submitted that the private respondent has actually played fraud

upon IOCL in obtaining the letter of appointment in her favour.

The petitioner has relied upon the provisions of the Unified Guidelines in

support of his contention that IOCL acted in deviation of the conditions as laid down

in the Unified Guidelines.

The petitioner prays for a direction upon the respondent IOCL to cancel the

selection of the private respondent and to conduct a redraw for appointment of

Gramin LPG distributorship under open category.

The private respondent opposes the prayer of the petitioner. It has been

submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioner in the writ petition and

the petitioner is trying to make out a case out of the averments made by IOCL in its

affidavit-in-opposition.

It has been submitted that as per the Unified Guidelines there is a provision

for appeal. Had the petitioner been aggrieved by the act of IOCL to issue

appointment letter in favour of the private respondent, then the petitioner ought to

have taken steps for preferring the appeal before the appellate authority in terms of

the Unified Guidelines.

It has been submitted that the private respondent has already invested huge

sum of money in making construction for setting up of the LPG godown and

showroom and the Court ought not to interfere in this matter, at this stage.

It has further been submitted that the land offered by the private respondent

was in accordance with the guidelines and the criteria as laid down in the Unified

Guidelines and accordingly, IOCL accepted the same and issued letter of allotment

in her favour.

Prayer has been made for rejection of the writ petition.

IOCL has filed a report before this Court wherein it has been mentioned that

in the first draw of lots held on 8th June, 2018 amongst the eligible candidates, the

candidate who became successful failed to satisfy the eligibility conditions during

the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC). As such, the candidature of the

successful candidate was rejected and redraw was conducted amongst the

remaining candidates on 28th December, 2018.

The petitioner and the private respondent both participated in the redraw. The

private respondent emerged successful. FVC of the private respondent was

conducted on 18th January, 2019. During FVC it was revealed that the land offered

by the private respondent was not in the advertised location and the dimension of

the land offered was also not in accordance with the eligibility criteria mentioned in

the Unified Guidelines. It is at that point of time that the private respondent offered

an alternate piece of land for godown and the said alternate piece of land was again

verified and was found suitable in all respects.

According to Clause 2 of the Unified Guidelines, as the land offered by the

private respondent was found to be suitable at the time of FVC, accordingly, the

Letter of Intent holder, i.e, the private respondent herein, was offered a further

chance to offer a better land. The private respondent availed the benefit of the said

provision and offered a new land which was accepted by IOCL and accordingly

Letter of Allotment was issued in her favour on 31st December, 2020 and the

commissioning of the distributorship was done on 15th March, 2021. It has been

submitted that the writ petition was filed in December, 2021, that is, long after the

distributorship was commissioned.

Learned advocate representing IOCL relies upon the various provisions of the

Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG distributors and submits that the provisions

of the Unified Guidelines have been strictly adhered to by IOCL. Prayer has been

made for dismissing the writ petition.

I have heard the submissions and have perused the documents relied upon by

the parties.

It appears from the submissions made on behalf of the parties that pursuant

to an advertisement published in 2017 the petitioner and the private respondent

applied in response to the same. The private respondent emerged successful in the

redraw of lots stage. Letter of Intent was issued in her favour. IOCL conducted FVC

but at that point of time it was revealed that the land offered by the private

respondent was not in accordance with the requirement of IOCL. The private

respondent was afforded one opportunity to offer an alternate land, which she did.

The alternate land offered by the private respondent was accepted by IOCL. As the

alternate land offered by the private respondent stood accepted by IOCL,

accordingly, as per the Unified Guidelines she got a further opportunity to place a

better land.

According to Clause 2 (b) of the Unified Guidelines, if the land offered by the

candidate in the application or alternate land offered by the candidate at the time of

FVC meets all specifications as laid down in the advertisement on the basis of which

LOI has been issued, then the LOI holder can offer an alternate/ new land for

construction of godown of specified dimensions, in the advertised location. It will be

considered on the grounds of enhanced security/safety, better title, convenient

location, lower operating cost etc.

Clause 2 (e) mentions that if the land offered by the candidate in the

application or alternate land offered by the candidate at the time of FVC meets all

specifications, then subsequently, the LOI holder can offer an alternate/new land.

The private respondent herein offered alternate land at the time of FVC which

was in accordance with the required specifications, as such, as per the aforesaid

clause, the same was accepted by IOCL. The private respondent subsequently

offered a better piece of land and IOCL being satisfied with the land offered by the

private respondent issued letter of allotment in her favour.

Apparently, it does not appear that there has been any deviation from the

Unified Guidelines.

Had the petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by the selection of the private

respondent, then appropriate steps ought to have been taken by him for preferring

appeal before the appropriate authority according to the provision as mentioned in

the Unified Guidelines. The petitioner without approaching the appellate forum

directly approached this Court under the high prerogative writ jurisdiction praying

for cancellation of the letter of appointment issued in favour of the private

respondent, that too, long after the distributorship was commissioned.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Sekh vs. Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Limited and Others reported in (2014) 3 SCC 493 relied upon the

order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Air India Limited vs.

Cochin International Airport Limited reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, wherein it

relied upon the principle that when some defect is found in the decision making

process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great

caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely

on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public

interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only

when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires

interference, the Court should intervene.

The Court reiterated the need of caution while entertaining a writ petition in

contractual matters and held that unless justified by public interest, he same ought

not to be entertained.

From the discussions made herein above, it does not appear that there has

been any apparent error or illegality committed by IOCL at the time of issuance of

the letter of allotment in favour of the private respondent. Distributorship has

already commenced and it will not be proper to undo the action of IOCL at this

stage. The same will not serve the interest of either of the parties. There is no

overwhelming reason to interfere in the present set of facts. Accordingly, the Court

is not inclined to exercise discretion and entertain the writ petition.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the

parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.

( Amrita Sinha, J. )