AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.4.
The petitioner is a registered Cooperative Society intending to have LPG distributorship. In response to the notification for appointment of LPG distributors published in the newspaper namely 'Tripura Times' on 01.12.2009 [Annexure-C to the reply filed by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3], the petitioner has applied for such distributorship. It appears from the said notification that it has been clearly mentioned that land for construction of go-down will be treated suitable if it is located within 15 km radius of the advertised location, freely accessible through all-weather motorable approach road. The plot should be plain land and free from live overhead power transmission or telephone lines. Pipe lines/canels/drainage/nalas/public roads should not pass through that plot. The minimum dimension of the land has been prescribed by the said notification : 27 meter x 26.15 meter. That apart, the permission of the Chief Controller of Explosion would be obtained by the petitioner for storage of filled cylinders.
The land initially offered by the petitioner was found not suitable by the respondents No.1, 2 and 3. Thereafter, it is an admitted position that the petitioner offered an alternative land taking under lease. On the basis of that offer, it has been stated by Ms. P. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the letter of intent under No.IAO/SIL.5/33-1056 dated 31.10.2012 for LPG Distributorship at Mohanpur, West Tripura district, Tripura under open category was issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.4 was also intending to have the distributorship.
Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has submitted that if the letter of intent of the petitioner is challenged for not providing the appropriate land, then a turn would reasonably come for getting the regular distributorship of LPG under open category to the respondent No.4. The respondents have referred to Clause-11 of the said notification inviting application for the LPG Distributorship from the eligible persons. Clause-11 provides as under :
"11.CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN/SHOWROOM ON THE SITE AS MENTIONED IN APPLICATION
The applicants who readily have suitable godown/land for construction of godown for storage of filled LPG Cylinders and Shop/land for construction of shop for showroom for setting up LPG distributorship or have a firm commitment from the landowner for purchase/lease or can arrange it are awarded marks. The details given in the application above will be considered for this purpose and applicant will not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently (Even at the time of interview). For this purpose the land owned by the Family Unit‟ as defined in eligibility criteria could considered as belonging to the applicant. In case the land is owned by the family members of the Family Unit‟ an affidavit giving consent is required from the family member(s) as per format.
After selection of the applicant physical verification of the godown land/godown as well as the showroom will be undertaken. In the event if it is found that there is a variation in the details submitted in the application and or the plot is not found suitable for construction of godown/showroom allotment of the distributorship can be cancelled.
Or after selection if applicant for any reason is unable to construct godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of Explosion on the land/godown indicated in the application and or showroom as pr the oil company‟s standard layout on the land/shop indicated in the application, then the allotment of LPG distributorship made to the applicant will automatically stand cancelled.
If the candidate has expressed that he can arrange for the land for godown/showroom then, if selected the same has to be arranged within two months from the date of issue of LOI, failing which the LOI may be cancelled."
Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the petitioner had got the no-objection from the Chief Controller of Explosion against the land subsequently offered. It has been provided in Clause-11 that amongst other conditions as well will be considered and the applicant will not be given any opportunity to offer any other land subsequently, not even at the time of interview. Regarding the selection, there is no dispute.
Now, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 by filing their reply has contended that the land as offered by the petitioner does not conform to the requirement as the land fails to conform the specification: 17 meter x 26.15 meter in terms of the information provided to the respondents No.1,2 and 3.
In consequence thereof, by the communication dated 24.01.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition], the respondents has apprised of their decision, which can be had from the passage as reproduced below :
"You were selected as First empanelled applicant in the interview conducted on 7th February, 2011 at Silchar. After Field verification Letter of Intent as mentioned above was issued to you. However, due to subsequent complaints with regards to the previous offered land as mentioned in your applications, fresh No Objections from concerned Authorities had to be obtained along with approvals from Corporation for alternated land. The alternate land was allowed to be accepted as per policy as earlier land was not considered safe as notified by District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, vide letter ref : No.1(17)-DM/W/JDL/2012/281-86 dated 29th January, 2014."
The selection of the petitioner, was challenged in a civil suit being Title Suit No.36 of 2014 which was, in the course of time, dismissed.
It has been further communicated that the said alternative land was not verified initially for suitability as per serial No.10(a) of the said notification (Advertisement). It was required to be verified by the Field Investigation Committee. It has been verified later and found that the alternative land pertaining to khatian No.4354, dag No.2164, hal No.2165/9872 offered by the petitioner was having dimension of 24 meter x 30 meter. Thus, it was not meeting the criteria of minimum dimension of 27 meter/26.15 meter. Thus the letter of intent as issued on 31.10.2012 for LPG Distributorship at Mohanpur, West Tripura district, Tripura stood withdrawn. The petitioner has challenged that action of the respondents of withdrawing the letter of intent for LPG distributorship as communicated vide the letter dated 24.01.2017 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition].
Since, the embargo that was considered involved only the dimension of the land and the writ petitioner has claimed that the land as offered by him was having the dimension of 27 x 30 meter, this court engaged a Survey Commissioner for filing the report. The Director of Land Records and Settlement, Government of Tripura was asked by the order to give that report but the said report is found totally inadequate as there is no mention of the dimension of the land. Unless the dimension is mentioned in the report it would be difficult to arrive at an inference or to mitigate the controversy. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has further submitted that the dimension of the land can be gathered from the documents submitted by the petitioner.
In response to such submission, Ms. Dhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that from the hand sketch map as submitted along with the report, it would be apparent that the land is having the dimension of 88.08 ft. x 92.00 ft. and if the unit is converted to meter, it would respectively come to 26.84 meter and 28.04 meter. The same plot in another hand sketch map [Annexure-14 to the writ petition] has been shown having the dimension of 27 meter x 28 meter. In another hand sketch map prepared at the instance of the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 it is shown that the dimension is 80 ft./160 ft. Hence, it appears that these inputes are not very reliable as there surfaces wide variation in the measurement.
Having confronted thus, this court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction :
The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 shall resurvey the land by an expert who has adequate experience in measuring the land following the modern method of survey in presence of the petitioner. The petitioner may also take assistance of a technically sound person to provide assistance during the survey. If after survey, the claim of the petitioner is found justified, the respondents shall revoke the action withdrawing the letter of intent and take necessary steps for purpose of engaging the petitioner as the LPG Distributor for Mohanpur area. But, if it is found that the land is not suitable for its lesser dimension, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 would not be required to recall their action of withdrawal.
Such survey shall be completed within a period six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made abundantly clear prior notice of seven days be given to the petitioner for survey.
There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be supplied to the counsel of the parties.