Dismissed

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014WP/5020/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed this writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application for an LPG distributorship. The court held that the rejection was valid as the petitioner's lease deed, dated 24 October 2013, was only effective for 14 years as of the application deadline of 29 October 2013, failing the mandatory 15-year requirement. The court ruled that a subsequent agr

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble Vs Hindustan Petroleum… — Company and Corporate | Bombay HC (2014)

Deshmane PPD

WP.5020-14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5020 OF 2014

¶6

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Virendra V. Pethe, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Minoo Siodia a/w. Ms. Jenita Lale, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

¶11

Mr. D.A. Dube, Advocate for Respondent No.3 – U.O.I.

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 10^th JUNE, 2014

¶14

ORAL ORDER : (PER A.S. CHANDURKAR,J.)

¶15

By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 28^th April, 2014 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”, for short) holding the petitioner ineligible for being awarded LPG Distributorship.

¶16

The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement issued calling for applications with regard to LPG Distributorship

1 / 6

PPD

WP.5020-14.doc

at Gursale (Pandharpur), District – Solapur from applicants belonging to Scheduled Tribe category, submitted his application form along with necessary documents to the respondent No.1 – Corporation.

¶22

Insofar as the location of godown/showroom was concerned, the petitioner supplied copy of leasedeed dated 24^th October, 2013, which leasedeed was for a period of 15 years from the said date. However, by communication dated 28^th April, 2014 the candidature of the petitioner was held to be ineligible on the ground that the period of lease of 15 years, as required by the advertisement, was less by five days. It is this communication that is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Virendra Pethe submitted that in terms of the advertisement, the petitioner had duly submitted all necessary documents including registered leasedeed dated 24^th October, 2013 providing for location of the showroom and godown. The said leasedeed was for a period of 15 years from 24^th October, 2013. Relying upon clause (3) of the aforesaid leasedeed, it was submitted that there was a clause for extending the period of lease and hence merely because according to the Corporation the lease period was short by five days, the candidature of the petitioner could

2 / 6

PPD

WP.5020-14.doc

not have been rejected. It was further submitted that on 20^th May, 2014, the petitioner and his lessor had entered into an agreement by which the lessor was willing to extend the period of aforesaid lease by five more days. Thus, in substance, it was submitted that even assuming that the period of registered leasedeed fell short by five days, in view of the willingness of the lessor to extend the period of lease, no prejudice would have been caused if the application of the petitioner would have been considered on its merits. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the impugned communication deserves to be set aside and the Corporation ought to be directed to consider the petitioner's application.

¶29

We have considered the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. We have also gone through the documents filed along with the Writ Petition. The Corporation has issued certain guidelines for selection of LPG Distributors. Clause 6.1 (vii) of the eligibility criteria, as prescribed, relates to the property that is indicated for location of the godown/showroom. The relevant extract of aforesaid clause (vii) reads thus :

¶30

“ 'Own' means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in the name of applicant / family member (as defined in multiple distributorship

3 / 6

PPD

WP.5020-14.doc

norm of eligibility criteria) as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any). In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member(s) as given above, consent in the form of a Notarized Affidavit from the family member(s) will be required.

¶36

It is thus clear that as per the aforesaid guidelines, where leased property is sought to be indicated as the location for godown/showroom, the period of lease should be for a minimum 15 years as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum. It is necessary to note that there is no challenge to the aforesaid guidelines in the present Writ Petition.

¶37

Perusal of the registered leasedeed dated 24^th October, 2013 indicates that the same is for a period of 15 years from the date of execution of the said leasedeed i.e. from 24^th October, 2013. The last date for submission of the application forms was 29^th October, 2013. It is, therefore, clear that in effect though the period of lease commenced from 24^th October, 2013, as on 29^th October, 2013, the same was short by five days for completing the period of 15 years. The guidelines issued by the Corporation in clear terms required a registered lease agreement for a minimum period of 15 years as on the last date for submission of application

4 / 6

PPD

WP.5020-14.doc

forms as specified in the advertisement.

¶43

In view of the aforesaid clear stipulation and the explanation given in the guidelines itself, it is clear that the leasedeed submitted by the petitioner was for a period lesser than 15 years on the last date for submission of the application forms. Hence, as the registered leasedeed submitted by the petitioner was for a shorter period than that prescribed by the advertisement, no fault can be found with the action of the Corporation of treating the petitioner's candidature invalid on the aforesaid ground.

¶44

Insofar as the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's lessor was willing to extend the period of lease by five days as per the agreement dated 20^th May, 2014, it is to be seen that there is no such provision either in the guidelines issued by the Corporation or in the advertisement in question permitting such course to be adopted. The guidelines specifically require a registered lease agreement for a minimum period of 15 years as on the last date for submission of the application forms. Hence, merely because the lease agreement that was submitted prior to the last date of submission of the application forms could be subsequently extended to complete the minimum period of 15 years, the same would not come to the aid of the petitioner in

5 / 6

PPD

WP.5020-14.doc

overcoming the shortfall of five days in the lease agreement initially submitted.

¶50

It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid that the petitioner's candidature has been found to be invalid in terms of the guidelines issued by the Corporation. As the registered lease agreement submitted by the petitioner was not for a minimum period of 15 years as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement, the impugned communication cannot be faulted.

¶51

Hence, there is no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶52

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶53

6 / 6

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

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

Santosh Rangrao Gaikwad Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ors.

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Niyojit Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rukhi/Walmiki Magasvargiya Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha, Kolhapur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Mr. Maruti Mura Vagare Vs District Officer, Sangli and Anr.

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust Vs P. S. Kamble, Teh Desk Officer and Ors.

Rajendrasingh Atmaram Yadav Vs Executive Engineer (Tmu), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Ors.