Before :- Indira Banerjee and M.R. Shah, JJ.
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 37479 of 2016. D/d. 04.10.2019.
Durgawati Devi - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry & Ors. - Respondents
For the Petitioners :- Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mr.Shiv Kumar Tripathi, Mr.Umang Tripathi, Ms.Sheela Mishra, Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Mr.Anil Kumar and Mr. Dr.Rajeev Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ms.Pinky Anand, ASG, Mr.Bharat S., Ms.Diksha Rai, Mr.Chakitan V.S.Papata, Mr.R.B.Yadav, Mr.Raj Bahadur, Mrs.Anil Katiyar and Mr. Anurag Kishore, Advocates.
ORDER
Indira Banerjee, J. - This special leave petition is against a judgment and order dated 8th March, 2016, passed by the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.4717 (M/B) of 2016 filed by the petitioner as devoid of merit.
2. Pursuant to an advertisement issued, inter alia, in the newspaper Amar Ujala, the petitioner applied for dealership of Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) in District Gonda under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Liquid Petroleum Gas Vitrak Yozana (RGGLPGVY).
3. The Brochure on selection of RGGLPGVY, inter alia, provided that the applicant should own a plot of land of adequate size at the advertised RGGLPGVY location, for construction of godown for storage of 5000 kg of LPG in cylinders, or ready LPG cylinder storage godown of 5000 kg capacity.
4. Clause 6H (iii) explains 'own' to mean having clear ownership title of the property in the name of the applicant, or in the name of family members of the 'Family Unit' of the applicant as defined in multiple dealership/distributorship norms, or land belonging to parents and grandparents (both maternal and paternal) of the applicant, as on the last date for submission of applications as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) in case of ownership/co-ownership) by family members.
5. Admittedly, as on the last date for submission of applications in terms of the advertisement referred to above, the petitioner did not own land as required. The petitioner only had an agreement for sale in her favour. It is well-settled that execution of a sale agreement does not transfer ownership/title. Ownership can only be acquired by a registered deed of conveyance. The petitioner was not eligible as on the last date for submission of applications.
6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously contended that a deed of conveyance has since been executed and the petitioner is now the owner of the land. However, it is not disputed that as on the relevant date, that is the last date for submission of applications, the petitioner was not the owner of the land.
7. The High Court cannot, and rightly did not, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, relax the terms and conditions of a tender notice.
8. Such relaxation would be patently discriminatory, for it would then be open for other applicants ineligible on the last date for submission of applications to contend that, they could have acquired eligibility subsequently.
9. In our view, the High Court rightly dismissed the Writ Petition, challenging the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner as devoid of merit. The impugned judgment and order does not call for interference. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed.
