Dismissed

Chandan Jaiswal v. General Manager/Member Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.andANR

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2024WRIC/5116/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of an LPG distributorship candidature. The court held that a letter indicating provisional selection did not estop the respondent from enforcing mandatory guidelines requiring a registered lease deed to exist by the application deadline.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the impugned order cancelling the petitioner's candidature was upheld.

Chandan Jaiswal Vs General Manager/Member Bharat… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:45039-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5116 of 2014

¶4

Petitioner :- Chandan Jaiswal Respondent :- General Manager/Member Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.Andanr Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh,Alok Singh,Mahendra Pratap Singh,Pt. S. Chandra,Syed Mehfuzur Rehman Counsel for Respondent :- M.E.Khan

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M. E. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers:-

¶8

"(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the impugned order dated 15.04.2014 passed by the opposite party No.2 (contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition).

¶9

(II) issue a writ, order or direction in nature of MANDAMUS commanding the Opposite Parties to allot the distributorship of the LPG to the petitioner in respect of Musepur Kalan, District Ambedkar Nagar as the petitioner has been declared qualified in the draw by the opposite parties. "

¶10

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had advertised for allotment of distributorship of LPG Agency on 29.09.2013 with respect to several places including Musepur Kalan (Ambedkar Nagar) under open category. The petitioner being eligible filed an application for distributorship of LPG Agency, however, his application was not in the prescribed format and a letter was issued to him on 27.12.2013 asking the petitioner to apply in the prescribed format alongwith the documents as mentioned in the said

¶11

letter. The petitioner completed the formalities and he was informed on 01.02.2014 that he was provisionally selected and that he should attend the draw of lots on 22.02.2014. The petitioner attended the draw of lots and he was also found selected during the lottery proceedings. However, after allotment of such distributorship of LPG for Musepur Kalan impugned order has been issued on 15.04.2014 by the opposite party no. 2 where the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing on the ground that the registered lease deed for the land which was offered by the petitioner for construction of showroom was dated 21.01.2014 whereas the last date for submission of application form in pursuance of advertisement, was 28.10.2013.

¶12

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the offer of land by the petitioner has been accepted by the respondents and the petitioner was found to be provisionally selected and later on also finally selected, his candidature could not be cancelled on technical ground.

¶13

It has further been submitted that initially when the petitioner had submitted his application for allotment of LPG distributorship, he had filed a notarized lease agreement dated 17.10.2013. He was advised through letter dated 27.12.2013 to submit a registered lease deed for the land offered as showroom. The petitioner thereafter got the lease/rent agreement registered. The respondents are now estopped from rejecting the candidature of the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out from the counter afÏdavit filed in September, 2014 that in the brochure on guidelines for selection of regular LPG distributorship issued in October, 2013 field verification of credentials was done after initial selection of candidates. It was found that the lease agreement for the land offered by the petitioner for construction of showroom was registered only on 21.01.2014, approximately, three months after the last date of submission of application form.

¶15

The petitioner did not own the land at the time of making the application as per the prescribed procedure, therefore, he did not fulfill the essential criteria for eligibility. The petitioner has nowhere alleged any illegality or error in the finding of fact regarding registered lease deed having been submitted dated 21.01.2014.

¶16

It has also been submitted by Mr. M. E. Khan that letter of intent was issued on 28.08.2014 and third party interest was created. The petitioner was informed of the same as mention regarding the same was also made in the counter afÏdavit filed in September, 2014. Yet the petitioner did not file any impleadment application for impleading the selected candidate as a respondent, in fact the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder afÏdavit till date, controverting the averments made in the counter afÏdavit.

¶17

It has been submitted that as per the provisions of Sub-Clause (viii) of Clause 6.1 of the Selection Guidelines in order to be eligible a candidate most own a suitable shop or a plot of land for construction of showroom as on the last date of submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum(if any) issued, at the advertised location or locality mentioned in the advertisement. Such shop or plot of land for construction of showroom should also be easily accessible to the general public through a suitable approach road. An explanation of the term "own" has also been given in the Selection Guidelines which means having ownership title of the property or a registered lease agreement for minimum 15 years in the name of the applicant/family member(s) as on the last date for submission of application form. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member(s) as given above consent in the form of a Notarized AfÏdavit from the family member(s) will also be required. In case the land is jointly owned by the applicant/ member of 'Family Unit' with any other person(s) and the share of the land in the name of applicant meets the requirement of land including the dimensions required, then that land will also qualify for godown/showroom subject to submission of 'No Objection Certificate' in the form

¶18

of an Notarized AfÏdavit from other co-tenure holders who is not the member of the Family Unit.

¶19

This Court having heard counsel for the parties is clearly of the opinion that the Selection Guidelines have very clearly defined ownership and a registered lease agreement was necessarily to be in existence as on the last date for submission of application form. In case any letter was issued to the petitioner on 27.12.2013 for completion of formalities and indicating that he was provisionally selected, that would not create any estopal against the Selection Guidelines duly notified by the respondents.

¶20

This Court cannot, at this late stage, direct the respondent to relax the Selection Guidelines or to ignore the Selection Guidelines only because a letter was issued by some ofÏcial of the respondent asking the petitioner to complete the formalities and indicating that he was provisionally selected.

¶21

We find no good ground to show interference in the impugned order.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶23

Order Date :- 2.7.2024 Darpan Sharma

¶24

Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandan Jaiswal v. General Manager/Member Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan Jaiswal v. General Manager/Member Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.andANR

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Housing and Urban Affairs, New Delhi and 5 Others

Satya Narayan Chaurasiya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law and L.R. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

C/M Navyug Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Meerut Thru. Director Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Deptt.of Cooperative , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Raju Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Bajrang Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Mr. Anil Kumar Yadava Vs M/S Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Thru. Head of Division Office Lko. and Others