AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 10-08-2026
The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following reliefs:
“I. A direction to the respondent corporation for granting the L.P.G. Dealership under the Rajeev Gandhi Rural L.P.G. Distribution (hereinafter referred to as R.G.G.L.V.) for the area known as Chandpur, District- Katihar under O.B.C. category.
II.During the pendency of the writ application, the respondent corporation may be restrained from granting dealership to any other person so as not to pre-empt the claim of the petitioner.
III. Any other relief/ reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The brief facts culled out of the Writ petition are that pursuant to an Advertisement dated 28.06.2013 issued by the respondent-Corporation, the petitioner applied for grant of LPG dealership under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme in the O.B.C. category for Chandpur in the district of Katihar. The petitioner was declared successful in the draw of lots held on 12.12.2013 and, thereafter, he deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- as directed by the respondent-Corporation.
It is the case of the petitioner that during the Field Verification, the respondent-Corporation informed him by letter dated 26.09.2014 that the land offered by him was slightly short of the prescribed area and called upon him to furnish another piece of land fulfilling the required area. According to the petitioner, acting upon the said communication, he purchased additional land so as to fulfil the required land criteria and reasonably expected that the dealership would be granted in his favour.
However, to the petitioner's surprise, the respondent-Corporation, by letter dated 29.08.2016, rejected his candidature on the ground that he did not own the requisite land at the advertised location, as on the last date of submission of the application. The petitioner contends that once the Corporation had granted him an opportunity to furnish additional land, it could not subsequently reject his candidature on the very same ground. According to the Writ petition, the impugned action is arbitrary, discriminatory and based on a hyper-technical approach.
It is further the case of the petitioner that in an earlier round of litigation, this Court, while disposing of C.W.J.C. No. 19062 of 2010, had observed that if a fresh advertisement was issued and the petitioner was otherwise eligible, his application should be considered in accordance with law.
The Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondents have adopted a discriminatory approach in rejecting the petitioner's candidature, despite his compliance with the directions issued by the Corporation. It is argued that the impugned decision defeats the legitimate expectation created by the respondents' own communication requiring the petitioner to furnish additional land. The petitioner submits that despite satisfying the requirements pursuant to the subsequent advertisement, his candidature has been rejected arbitrarily. Aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature, the petitioner has preferred the present Writ petition and prayed to direct the respondents to grant LPG dealership to the petitioner.
A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents. The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no legal right to claim the LPG dealership as he failed to satisfy the essential eligibility condition relating to ownership of suitable land on the last date of submission of the application. It is submitted that although the petitioner was selected in the draw of lots, the selection was subject to successful Field Verification of Credentials (FVC).
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that during the Field Verification, it was found that the land offered by the petitioner for construction of the godown did not satisfy the minimum prescribed dimensions. The petitioner had sought to rely upon adjoining land, standing in the name of another person, who was not a member of his family and, therefore, the said land could not be taken into consideration under the applicable guidelines.
The Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to establish his eligibility and was again contacted for verification of an alternate piece of land. However, the petitioner failed to produce the necessary documents relating to the alternate land. Subsequently, the petitioner relied upon a rectification deed to claim that the area of the originally offered land, was larger than what was mentioned in the original sale deed.
The Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the Corporation obtained a legal opinion regarding the effect of the rectification deed and, upon such opinion, it was found that the additional land claimed through the rectification deed could not be considered under the applicable selection policy. Consequently, the petitioner was held ineligible as he did not own the requisite land in the advertised location on the last date of submission of the application.
The Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines and after due consideration by the competent authority. It is submitted that the respondents have acted fairly, transparently and in conformity with the prescribed procedure and that no arbitrariness or illegality can be attributed to the impugned decision.
The Learned counsel for the respondents therefore submits that the petitioner having failed to fulfil the mandatory eligibility condition is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
In support of the case of the respondent Corporation, the Learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1) 2012 (2) PLJR 783 (M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Raj Kumar Jha & ors), and (2) order passed in LPA No. 925 of 2012 (Mukesh Pandey Vs. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation & Ors.).
The observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:
“8.We are of the opinion that the Corporation being the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution is supposed to act fairly, reasonably and uniformly and has to be objective in its approach. Once the standard is set out in the advertisement, the Corporation has to adhere to the said standard without any variation. In case, the Corporation allows any alteration the same will amount to subjective approach which is frowned upon by the Courts time and again. To remain objective the Corporation is required to adhere to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the application made by the writ petitioner was not in conformation with the requirements mentioned in the advertisement. In our opinion, the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner.
9.The Learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Corporation which was taken in consonance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement. Besides; may be, in the present case it was a mere typographical error. However, there might be a case of mischief or misrepresentation also. It is difficult to draw a line where an error ends and a mischief or misrepresentation begins. The best way to avoid discrimination is strict adherence to the standards mentioned in the advertisement. For the aforesaid reasons we hold that the Corporation was justified in rejecting the application of the writ petitioner. The Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 28th January, 2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 13196 of 2009 is set aside. CWJC No. 13196 is dismissed.”
Heard the Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
In view of the legal principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the eligibility criteria and standards are prescribed in the advertisement, the Corporation is required to adhere to the same strictly and uniformly. Any deviation or relaxation in the prescribed criteria would result in an arbitrary and subjective approach, which cannot be sustained in law.
This Court finds that although the petitioner was selected in the draw of lots, his selection was subject to successful Field Verification of Credentials. From the records, it appears that while in the application form the petitioner disclosed the dimensions of the land as 22 metres × 27 metres, during Field Verification of Credentials the actual dimensions were found to be 21 metres × 23.13 metres, which did not satisfy the minimum prescribed requirement.
It further appears from Annexures-R/3 and R/4 that the respondent-Corporation, instead of rejecting the candidature straightaway, afforded another opportunity to the petitioner to establish his eligibility by considering the alternate land offered by him. However, the petitioner failed to produce the supporting documents relating to the said land.
Further, from Annexure-R/5, it appears that the petitioner subsequently relied upon a rectification deed claiming that the area of the land had been wrongly mentioned in the original sale deed. The petitioner, however, also admitted that he had no other land to offer. In the opinion of this Court, such subsequent rectification cannot cure the deficiency which existed on the last date of submission of the application.
This Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the respondent-Corporation has acted strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines and has afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner before rejecting his candidature. No arbitrariness or illegality is found in the impugned action warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above discussion, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is devoid of merits.
In the result, the Writ petition stands dismissed.
Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.