AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Having lost in an earlier round of litigation up to the Supreme Court, the respondent no. 5 is still banking upon to put spanner to the rights accrued to
the petitioner in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench. A little prelude to the fact embolden in the instant writpetition is required to be
adumbrated to address the arguments advanced before this court.
At the very outset this court must record that the facts pleaded in the writ-petition are more or less undisputed and this court decided to proceed with
the writ-petition on such undisputed and admitted facts without banking upon any disputed facts pleaded in the writ-petition and, therefore, do not invite
the parties to exchange affidavits.
The undisputed facts as unfurled are that the Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), invited the application from various persons for allotment of LPG
dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Scheme (RGGLV) at village Rukunpur under Rukunpur Mouza under Rukunpur Gram Panchayat
in the district of Murshidabad. The said application was under open category and, therefore, was available to all persons belonging to different
categories to apply. Indubitably, the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 along with other applied for dealership and the petitioner emerged
successfully in the lucky draw. One of the requisite conditions in the said invitation was that the property must be situated within the village
Rukunpur or Rukunpur Mouza and the petitioner also applied identifying the property within the said area. The moment respondent no. 5 found that
he is put into second position several reports and certificates were obtained from different authorities in order to support the objection that the land
offered by the petitioner actually does not fall within the village Rukunpur area or Rukunpur Mouza which is one of the conditions incorporated in the
said invitation and, therefore, the application of the petitioner should be dismissed.
The Indian Oil Corporation without venturing to make any further investigation simply relied upon those certificates produced by the respondent no. 5
and rejected the application initially citing the ground that the petitioner is non-resident of that area. Subsequently, the said order was superseded by
another letter dated July 5, 2013 amending and clarifying that the ground of nonresident was inadvertently taken in the original communication and
actually the said application was rejected as the land which was offered by the petitioner is not situated within the periphery of the said village or the
Mouza.
The petitioner challenged the said letter dated July 5, 2013 in WP No. 23362 (W) of 2013. It is axiomatic to record that the respondent no. 5 also
arraigned as a party in the said writ-petition. The learned single Judge dismissed the said writ-petition solely on the ground that the land offered by
the petitioner does not come within the periphery of village and Mouza Rukunpur on the basis of the report submitted by the District Magistrate of the
concerned district. The learned single Judge, however, found that one of the preliminary and requisite condition was that the land must situate within
the boundaries of the said village and Mouza and if the land is beyond the periphery thereof, the IOC has not committed any error in rejecting the
candidature of the petitioner. The order of the learned single Judge was carried to Division Bench.
The Division Bench set aside the order not only on the ground that the judgment of the learned single Judge is factually and legally incorrect but
observed that the said judgment is passed upon incorrect and wrong report submitted by the District Magistrate and a subsequent report which was
called for, revealed that the land offered by him is situated within the area of Rukunpur village and Mouza. The court quashed the said letter dated
July 5, 2013.
The respondent no. 5 herein challenged the said order of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court of India and Special Leave Petition being SLP
(C) No. 6534 of 2018 stood dismissed summarily.
The petitioner filed the instant writ-petition not only seeking an order for cancellation of the distributorship allotted to the respondent no. 5 but also to
grant distributorship to the petitioner as the reason for rejecting his candidature and/or application does not find support from the order of the Division
Bench and once having quashed, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right accrued to him.
On the basis of the aforesaid undisputed facts the present writ-petition is filed and despite service the Indian Oil Corporation is not represented in the
instant matter. The State is represented, so also the respondent no. 5. The burden or defending or resisting the writ-petition has been shouldered by the
said respondent no. 5 in the instant writ-petition as the State has a negligible role to the cause of action pleaded in the instant writ-petition.
Mr. Ghosh, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 5, submits that his client was appointed as dealer being the second
successful candidate and the prayer which is sought in the instant writ-petition cannot be entertained as the IOC has to ultimately take decision.Â
According to Mr. Ghosh, the challenge was restricted in the earlier writ-petition to the letter dated July 5, 2013. Now even after setting aside of the
said letter it does not automatically invite the order, as sought for in the instant writ-petition, to be passed in favour of the writ-petitioner.
I am not impressed with the aforesaid submission for the reasons recorded hereinafter. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5
participated in the invitation and the petitioner was adjudged as successful candidate. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected solely on the
ground that the land offered by him was beyond the territorial limit of Rukunpur village and Mouza and the said order was challenged by the petitioner
in the earlier writ-petition filed before this court. The Division Bench categorically observed that the said land is situated within the peripheral limit of
Rukunpur village and, therefore, the decision of the IOC cannot be sustained. The court quashed and set aside such decision. As a resultant fact
the candidature of the petitioner stood revived and the position which emerged that the petitioner is in the race of being considered for such dealership.
The plea that the dealership has already been given to the respondent no. 5 and, therefore, a right has accrued in him is not acceptable. The
moment the entire issue has been re-opened and the ball is rolled in the court of the IOC to take a decision in this regard, the factum of quashing the
letter dated July 5, 2013 cannot be squeezed and restricted in the manner as suggested by respondent no. 5. If any benefit had accrued to the private
respondent on the basis of such order of rejection, such benefit cannot be allowed to continue if such decision was later on quashed and set aside by
the court. If the foundation goes, anything constructed thereupon, cannot stand independently and should also fall. No right, far to speak of
accrued right, is created in favour of the respondent no. 5 in allotting the dealership after rejecting the candidature of the petitioner once the impugned
letter is quashed and set aside by the Division Bench of this court.
Though I am not oblivion of the fact, mere dismissal of the Special Leave Petition summarily does not invite merger of the order of the writ-petition
yet there is no hesitation to say that the order of the Division Bench has not been interfered with and, therefore, attained finality and binds the parties
to the proceeding.
As indicated above, the decision to allot dealership was dependent one, founded and based upon the rejection order and the moment the rejection order
is quashed and set aside, the IOC is required to pass an appropriate and necessary order in this regard.
It is trite law that the court shall not dismiss the writ-petition as relief appeared to be a larger one but the court may grant appropriate relief if the
circumstances and/or the admitted facts warrant so. Â The writ court cannot relegate its position to that of an administrative authority in passing the
order, but definitely can interfere with the decision of the authority coming within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution and in the prerogative writ
can pass an order rendering substantial justice to the parties.
The IOC has not taken any decision after the order of the Division Bench passed in the earlier writ-petition and the writ-petition is essentially filed for
a direction upon the IOC to take a decision on the basis of the observation recorded in the order of the Division Bench. An authority cannot sit tight
over of the matter or keep the right in suspended animation without being adjudicated promptly and time and again this court has passed direction to
awake such authority who is sleeping in slumber. The statutory or administrative authority cannot keep the right of the parties indecisive or in lurch
and invite such person to approach the court for such directions resulting into mounting of cases in the different courts of the country.
This court, therefore, directs the Indian Oil Corporation to take a decision relating to the allotment of the dealership in terms of the invitation published
in RGGLV on the basis of the observations recorded in the judgment of the Division Bench and shall pass a consequential order thereupon in
accordance with law.
The entire exercise shall be completed within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.
The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the Indian Oil Corporation and shall also annex the writ-petition with the communicating letter
by speed post within a week from date.
The writ-petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.