Krishna Devi vs Union Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 11101 P&H

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:095589




CWP No. 20074 of 2018          -1-                2023:PHHC:095589

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

                                       CWP No. 20074 of 2018(O&M)
                                       Date of Decision: 27.07.2023
Krishna Devi

                                                    ---Petitioner
                               versus

Union of India and others
                                                    ---Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:    Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. Aman Gautam, Advocate and
            Mr. Gagandeep, Advocate
            for the petitioner

            Mr. Ankur Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel
            for Union of India

           Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate
           for respondents No. 2 and 3

            Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate
            for respondent No. 5

           ****
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

CM-15234-CWP-2018

1. Prayer in this application is for impleadment of Hemant

Kumar son of Parshu Ram as respondent No.4.

2. Allowed as prayed for.

3. Hemant Kumar son of Parshu Ram is ordered to be

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:095589

CWP No. 20074 of 2018 -2- 2023:PHHC:095589

impleaded as respondent 4.

4. Amended Memo of Parties is taken on record. Registry is

directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

CWP- 20074 of 2018

5. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order

dated 19.06.2018 (Annexure P-9) whereby her claim for allotment of

LPG distributorship has been rejected.

6. The petitioner vide application dated 11.09.2017,

pursuant to advertisement dated 13.08.2017, applied for LPG

distributorship of respondent No.2. The petitioner was declared

successful candidate in the draw of lots and asked to submit security

along with requisite documents. The petitioner deposited security

along with requisite document i.e. lease deed with owner of

showroom. The size of the show room was less than required size,

thus, petitioner vide communication dated 19.06.2018 was asked to

provide alternative land by 26.06.2018. The petitioner realized that

dimension of area disclosed in the lease deed is incorrect and it can be

corrected by way of rectified lease deed. Accordingly, the petitioner

vide rectified lease deed dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure P-8) got

corrected land owner's share. The respondent rejected application of

the petitioner on the ground that rectification has been executed after

last date of submission of application, thus, petitioner is not entitled to

allotment.

7. Mr. Yadav, Senior Advocate for the petitioner, inter alia

contends that in the original lease deed there was some mistake which

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:095589

CWP No. 20074 of 2018 -3- 2023:PHHC:095589

was got corrected and for the said purpose rectified lease deed was

prepared. The rectification relates back to the date of original

execution of lease deed, thus, petitioner was entitled to allotment and

he has wrongly been denied benefit of allotment.

To buttress his contention, he cited judgment of this

Court in Sonia Marya vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

others, CWP No. 20919 of 2018 decided on 19.08.2019 as well two

Judge Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in Panch Dev

Kumar vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others Writ-C No.

15653 of 2018 decided on 09.05.2018. Judgment dated 19.08.2019

passed by Single Bench of this Court stands upheld by a Division

Bench of this Court.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited submits that petitioner was directed to provide

alternate land, however, he provided the same land with rectified lease

deed which could not be accepted.

9. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sonia Marya

(Supra) while dealing with distributorship of LPG has considered the

identical issue and allowed the writ petition. The Court has noticed

that rectified lease deed was submitted before passing the impugned

order.

In the case in hand, rectified lease deed was submitted

even before the last date granted to offer alternative land. The

judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court stands affirmed

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:095589

CWP No. 20074 of 2018 -4- 2023:PHHC:095589

by Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1205 of 2021 vide

judgment dated 17.12.2021. The Division Bench of Allahabad High

Court in Panch Dev Kumar (supra) has also formed the same

opinion. The Court has clearly held that rectification will relate back

to date on which lease deed was executed.

The Corporation itself asked the petitioner to offer

alternate land meaning thereby the petitioner was at liberty to provide

any other land which fulfilled requirements of the

brochure/advertisement. The petitioner instead of arranging any other

land has got corrected the shortcoming in the the land which was

originally submitted. The stand of the respondent-corporation seems

to be pedantic whereas it was a contractual matter where intent and

purport of both sides should be to execute contract and commence the

commercial activity.

11. In view of the aforestated judgment of this Court, this

Court is of the considered opinion that present petition deserves to be

allowed and accordingly allowed. Impugned order dated 19.06.2018

(Annexure P-9) passed by respondent is hereby set aside.

( JAGMOHAN BANSAL ) JUDGE 27.07.2023 paramjit Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:095589

4 of 4