Case Title: MRINMOY MAITY VERSUS CHHANDA KOLEY AND OTHERS

Case No: 5027 of 2024

Decided on:18th April, 2024

Quorum: Honourable Justice Aravind Kumar

Facts of the case

On September 9, 2012, an advertising was released inviting distributors to apply for a GP Category LPG distributorship . Among the applications so received, it was determined that both respondent No. 1 and the appellant’s application were in order. After a draw of lots on May 11, 2013, it was determined that the appellant and respondent No. 1 were eligible out of the six (6) candidates. As a result, the appellant was chosen to have their documents verified. On February 24, 2014, the appellant received a letter of intent; on June 3, 2014, the BPCL approved the appellant’s request to begin an LPG distributorship at the designated location. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with the BPCL for the first four years, claiming that the land given by the appellant was Barga land and could not be taken into consideration. Respondent No. 1, a competitor for the distributorship grant, participated in the application process but lost in the lot drawing that took place back in 2013.

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant’s learned counsel would fiercely argue that the temporary injunction that had been previously granted had been dissolved and that the learned single judge had properly dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner’s lack of locus standi. Additionally, it is argued that by the time the Learned Single Judge issued the temporary status quo order on July 20, 2017, the appellant here had already filed an application to accept the alternate land that was offered. This request was later processed. Division Bench ignored them and went off course when accepting the writ petitioner’s plea. They also gave the writ petitioner’s exhibits complete credit and extended the olive branch based only on assumptions and suppositions. As a result, the contested order may be set aside, and the writ petition which the Learned Single Judge ultimately dismissed must be upheld. The appellant’s win in the allocation by the letter of intent and the allotment by draw of lots were issued, and the prayer for offering the alternate land was also accepted. Taking into consideration the later development, specifically the notification dated April 30, 2015, issued by the relevant government, instructing the Oil Marketing Companies to provide flexibility in the selection guidelines by offering a “opportunity to offer alternate land in response to the advertisement” that clarified the position regarding the alternative land offered had been taken into consideration by the Corporation in the instant case. Satisfied with the applicant/appellant’s sincerity, the Corporation had approved the construction, and as a result, the building, the godown, and the show have been constructed.

Respondent’s Contentions

He would argue that the Division Bench properly disregarded the issue of the Writ Petition’s delay in filing, and that the matter must now be reviewed in light of the facts discovered in this particular case. This is because the flagrant violation of the guidelines would be the primary cause of the problem, and its inherent flaw cannot be allowed to be fixed, even if it were to do so by depending on a revision to the guidelines that took effect after the in question advertisement been altered after the game started, which was precisely the exercise . He thus begs that the appeal be dismissed.

Court Analysis and Judgement

Sustaining the Learned Single Judge’s decision and rejecting the writ petition due to locks and delay. Firstly, it must be noted that the writ petitioner was a competing candidate for an LPG distributorship, and she was deemed to be eligible together with the appellant herein. The appellant herein was declared successful by virtue of the lotteries. This factual element would demonstrate that the petitioner for the writ was aware of all the events, including the distributorship that had been granted to the appellant in this case back in 2014, but he chose not to file a challenge until after accepting the alternate land that the appellant had offered in March 2017 and allowing him to build the godown and showroom. When the same was contested in 2017, the writ petitioner was able to exercise his right, if any, to have wandered away, or to have consented to the Corporation’s actions; for this reason, the appellant must prevail even on the thinnest of grounds. Second, additional evidence that has persuaded us to accept the appellant’s position is that, without a doubt, the relevant government felt the need to allow the Oil Marketing Companies to be more flexible. As a result, on April 15, 2015, changes to the guidelines were made, allowing the applicants to offer alternative land in the event that the land they initially offered was deemed inadequate or unsuitable or to alter the land, subject to the specifications as laid out. Consequently, we find no basis to replace the experts’ opinion with the court’s. Specifically, the Corporation has wisely exercised its discretion, as shown by the report submitted as an affidavit by the territory manager (LPG)/BPCH.Consequently, we believe that the decision made by the Learned Division Bench is subject to being overturned, and as such, it has been. For the reasons listed above, the Learned Single Judge’s order is upheld, and the appeal is granted .

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace