Dismissed

Radhakrisna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shahapur, through President, Shri. Vishwanath Krishna Ghatge v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Jul 2014WP/6166/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an LPG distributorship candidature. The Court held that the lease deed period must be calculated as on the application submission date, not the formation date, making the petitioner ineligible as the lease was short by 29 days.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Radhakrisna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

Deshmane PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6166 OF 2014

¶6

Radhakrishna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shahapur, Ichalkaranji, through its President Shri Vishwanath Krishna Ghatge

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and another.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Jenita Lale i/b. M/s. Rustamji & Ginwalla, for the Respondents.

¶13

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

¶14

DATE : 02^nd JULY, 2014

¶15

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

¶16

By the present Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 10^th May, 2014 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”, for short) holding the petitioner ineligible for being awarded LPG Distributorship.

¶17

The petitioner pursuant to an advertisement dated 29^th September, 2013 calling for applications with regard to

1 / 7

PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

LPG Distributorship at Hatkanangale Road, Ichalkaranji, District – Kolhapur from applicants belonging to Open Category, submitted his application form along with necessary documents to the respondent No.1 – Corporation.

¶23

As per the aforesaid advertisement, the last date by which applications were required to be submitted was 29^th October, 2013. The applicant submitted his application form on 23^rd October, 2013. Insofar as the details of the land for constructing the godown were concerned, the petitioner sought to give details about the land owned by Shri Tukaram Shankar Shelke that was taken on lease on 11^th October, 2013. Insofar as the details with regard to showroom were concerned, the petitioner relied on a lease deed dated 15^th October, 2013 entered into with him by one Shri Sachin Damodar Nakil. The period of aforesaid lease deed was from 1^st October, 2013 to 30^th September, 2028. On 10^th May, 2014, the respondent No.1 Corporation informed the petitioner that his candidature was not found eligible as there was no registered leasedeed for godown and showroom for clear 15 years as on the last date of submission of the application forms. It is this communication that is the subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶24

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Shri Akshay

2 / 7

PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

Shinde submitted that in terms of the advertisement, the petitioner had duly submitted all necessary documents including registered leasedeed dated 15^th October, 2013 providing for location of showroom. The said leasedeed was for a period of 15 years from 1^st October, 2013 to 30^th September, 2028. It was submitted that as required the lease was for a period of 15 years and hence the petitioner should have been treated as an eligible candidate. It was further submitted that neither the advertisement nor the application form had mentioned as to how the period of 15 years was to be calculated. As the lease for the purpose of godown was for a period of 15 years from 1^st October, 2013, there was substantial compliance with the requirements and hence the Corporation ought not to have taken a hyper technical view while rejecting the petitioner's candidature. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned communication be set aside and the petitioner be considered for allotment of the LPG distributorship.

¶30

Ms. Jenita Lale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – Corporation on the other hand supported the impugned communication and submitted that the Corporation had rightly rejected the petitioner's candidature as the leasedeed submitted by him was not for a period of 15 years as on the last date for submission of the application form. It was submitted that

3 / 7

PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

necessary instructions in that regard had been mentioned in the application form as well as in the guidelines issued by the Corporation in that regard. It was further submitted that as the leasedeed furnished by the petitioner was for a shorter period than the period stipulated, the petitioner was held ineligible for being considered for allotment of distributorship. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 relied upon the order dated 10^th June, 2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5020 of 2014 in support of her submissions. She, therefore, urged that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the leasedeed dated 15^th October, 2013 was for a period from 1^st October, 2013 to 30^th September, 2028. As per the advertisement dated 29^th September, 2013, the last date for submission of the application forms was 29^th October, 2013. Thus, according to the said advertisement, it was necessary for the applicant to furnish a registered leasedeed for a period of 15 years as on the last date for submission of the application forms. Thus, the period of 15 years was required to be reckoned from 29^th October, 2013 which was the last date for submission of the application forms. The registered lease deed submitted by the petitioner was for the period till 30^th September, 2028. It was, thus, short by almost 29 days for completing the period of 15 years.

4 / 7

PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

In Writ Petition No.5020 of 2014, referred to above, a similar issue was considered by this Court and in paragraphs5 and 6 of the said order, it was held thus :

¶42

“ 5. 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/show-room. The relevant extract of aforesaid clause (vii) reads thus :

¶43

“ 'Own' means having ownership title of the property

¶44

or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in the name of applicant / family member (as defined in multiple distributorship 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.

¶45

It is thus clear that as per the aforesaid guidelines, where leased property is sought to be indicated as the location for godown/show-room, 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.

¶46

In view of the 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

5 / 7

PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

years as 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.

¶52

Insofar as the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no stipulation mentioned in the advertisement or the application form regarding the minimum period for which the lease was required, the same is illfounded. It is clearly stated in the application form that the period of lease should be for minimum 15 years. Similarly, the guidelines issued by the respondent No.1 Corporation are clear in which it has been stated that the period of 15 years should be as on the last date for submission of the application forms. Considering this clear stipulation, it is not open for the applicant to contend that it was not mentioned in the application form that the lease required was for a minimum period of 15 years. Similarly the submission made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Corporation was acting in a hyper technical manner cannot be accepted as the stipulation in that regard mentioned in the guidelines and the application form is clear and unambiguous. If the requirement of having a lease for a minimum period of 15

6 / 7

PPD

WP.6166-14.doc

years as on the last date of submitting the application form was stipulated and pursuant to such a condition, the petitioner had submitted his application form, then the petitioner was bound by the terms of the advertisement and the guidelines pursuant to which he had applied and sought allotment of the LPG distributorship. Hence, in these facts the decision of the Corporation in treating the petitioner's candidature invalid for submitting the lease deed for a period lessor than 15 years, cannot be faulted.

¶58

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

¶59

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

¶60

7 / 7

Radhakrisna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shahapur, through President, Shri. Vishwanath Krishna Ghatge v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrisna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Shahapur, through President, Shri. Vishwanath Krishna Ghatge v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri J.K. Majumdar Vs Secaretary, Ministryof Railways and Ors.

Mohmmed Salim Mohmmed Kasam Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Gunina Commercials Private Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Shri. Salim Mohammed Shaikh Vs the Collector of Satara and Ors.

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, through Legal Officer, Shri. Arvind Mahadeo Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Co-Op. and Textile Dept and Ors.

Sou. Sumitra Sumit Patole Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Anr.