This writ challenge concerned the appointment of an LPG distributor where the showroom was located in an adjoining village but within the defined trading area. The court held no impediment existed and dismissed the appeal.
The writ appeal was dismissed; the order of the Single Judge allowing the respondent to maintain the showroom was not interfered with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.265 OF 2011
29th August, 2012
Between: C. Venkat Reddy … Appellant And
M. Srinivas & others … Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL No.265 OF 2011
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice)
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 29.3.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.10143 of 2010, allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1 herein.
2) This is the second round of litigation in respect of appointment of LPG distributor for Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. A small but interesting question arises in this appeal as to the interpretation of the word ‘location’ used in the application for LPG distributorship.
3) Shorn of the unnecessary facts, the appellant herein earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.No.26571 of 2008 alleging that the site chosen by respondent No.1 for the purpose of showroom is not within the limits of Isnapur Village. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 3.12.2009 directing the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL) to take into account the objections raised by the appellant herein before a final decision is taken for selection of LPG distributor for Isnapur Village. Thereafter, on 22.2.2010, respondent No.5 herein informed respondent No.1 that the site offered by him for the purpose of showroom is located in Muthangi Village and not in the advertised location viz. Isnapur and that the Corporation shall be taking suitable action for cancellation of his candidature. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 herein filed a writ petition being W.P. No.10143 of 2010. A learned Single Judge, by an order dated 29.3.2011 allowed the writ petition. It was observed that the mere fact that the place for construction of showroom is selected at a place, which immediately abuts the limits of Isnapur revenue village, cannot be treated as a factor to disqualify the petitioner (respondent No.1 herein). Challenging the same, the appellant, who is respondent No.5 in the said writ petition, has preferred this appeal.
4) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the showroom should be located only at the advertised location specified and not within 15 k.m. radius of the advertised location unlike godown and
there is a clear distinction between the two. He submitted that the Grievance Redressal Committee personally visited the site offered by respondent No.1 for showroom and observed that the same is located in Muthangi Village and not in the advertised location viz. Isnapur. The Hon’ble Single Judge, however, proceeded on the basis that the word ‘location’ is not defined with any precession and the information furnished in the notification is a bit vague. He submitted that it has been categorically mentioned in the notification as well as the application form that show room should be located in the location advertised and should have a suitable approach road. He further submitted that the judgment relied on by the learned Single Judge in relation to the construction of godowns for Food Corporation of India is not applicable to the facts of this case, as the location for show room and godown is clearly indicated here. In the present case, the 15 k.m. radius from the advertised location is in respect of godown and not for show room. He submitted that the writ petition should have been dismissed as respondent No.1 has given false information and made false declaration for obtaining LPG distributorship.
5) Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 reiterated the submission made before the Hon’ble Single Judge and submitted when the marketing area is spread over a radius of 15 k.m. from Isnapur, no objection could have been taken to the establishment of showroom at the boundary of that village. 6) Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for HPCL submitted that the site chosen by respondent No.1 does not conform to the requirement mentioned in the notification. He submitted that the showroom should be located in the location advertised i.e. within Isnapur Village and admittedly, the place purchased by respondent No.1 is outside the limits of Isnapur Village, therefore, not suitable for establishing the showroom.
7) For better appreciation of the issue, we may refer to Clause 13.2 of the Notice for appointment of LPG Distributors issued on 1.10.2007,
which reads thus:
“SHOWROOM
Showroom as per the standard layout can be constructed in a shop/and located in the area of operation (trading area) of the advertised location for LPG distributorship and should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road.”
Column 13B of the application appended to the above Notice reads as under:
“SHOWROOM FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP Specification for LPG Showroom Minimum dimension of the Showroom 3 m x 4.5 m
Showroom should be located in the location advertised and should have suitable approach road.”
A reading of Clause 13.2 extracted above shows that the showroom can be located in the area of operation of the advertised location for LPG distributorship and it should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. Presumably, basing on this clause, in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition, HPCL took a stand that the land shown by respondent No.1 herein falls within the trading area of Isnapur and is in conformity with the said clause and hence there is no impediment for the Corporation to take into consideration of the same for establishing the showroom.
8) However, Column 13B says that the showroom should be located in the advertised location. In the counter affidavit filed in the subsequent writ petition, HPCL stated that subsequent to the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.26751 of 2008, the matter was reconsidered and found that as per the application form (Column 13B) the showroom should be located in the location advertised.
9) We may also refer to Clause 8.2 of the Brochure on Selection of HP Gas Distributors, which is to the following effect:
A reading of the above clause makes it very clear that the showroom will be suitable if it is located in the advertised location. Thus, there is no emphasis on the location of the showroom and it will be suitable if it is located in the advertised location.
10) Admittedly, Isnapur is located about 2.75 k.m. from National High Way No.9 as certified by the Panchayat Secretary of Isnapur Gram Panchayat and the land offered by respondent No.1 herein is located on the other side of the National Highway. A plan is also filed as a material paper along with the writ appeal. 11) As disclosed from the material on record, the trading area for LPG distributorship at Isnapur is within a radius of 15 k.m. from ‘0’ mile of Isnapur. According to the plan certified by the Panchayat Secretary of Isnapur Gram Panchayat, the said village is located about 2.75 k.m. from National Highway No.9, where the land offered by respondent No.1, which falls within Muthangi village is situated. As the trading area is within a radius of 15 k.m., in our opinion, there is no impediment for HPCL to consider the land offered by respondent No.1 for establishing the showroom, which is only about 2.75 k.m. from Isnapur, as it is easily accessible to general public. 12) It is interesting to note that in the earlier Writ Petition No.26751 of 2008, HPCL had filed a counter wherein a specific stand taken by HPCL in para 4(d) of the counter affidavit is exactly contrary to the stand now taken by HPCL in the present writ petition. For the sake of convenience the said para 4(d) is extracted hereunder:
“4(d). Accordingly, filed inspection of the lands shown by the 4th respondent was done and from the said inspection it was noticed that the land earmarked for Showroom as mentioned in the application submitted by the 4th respondent and physically inspected by the officials is part of existing colony on Chikul road. The said showroom land falls under Muthangi Village and is approximately 200 mts from Isnapur X Road. Isnapur X Road is approximately 1½ Km from Isnapur (Isnapur X road is part of Isnapur Village and one side of the said
Cross road is Muthangi Village). The said land shown by the 4th respondent falls within the trading area of Isnapur and is in conformity with the clause 13.2 of the selection criteria published in the advertisement for selection of HP Gas Distributors. Hence there is no impediment for the corporation to take into consideration of the same for establishing the show room.”
As noticed above, after this Court disposed of the earlier writ petition directing HPCL to take into account the objections raised by the petitioner, the decision of HPCL dated 22.02.2010 proceeds to record a contrary opinion that the advertised location is not within the trading area.
13) In view of these conflicting stands of HPCL, the meaning attached to the phrase ‘trading area’, as understood by HPCL would be crucial.
In this connection, a query answered by HPCL under the Right to Information Act, 2005 vide their communication dated 23.04.2010 with regard to the details of ‘Trading Area for Isnapur’ (pg.51 of the paper book) would be relevant to be quoted, as under:
1. Under HPCL rules and guidelines, “the trading area for LPG distributorship at Isnapur is within 15 Kms radius from ‘0’ mile of Isnapur.
2. Trading area means the area in which the dealer is authorized to carryout his business activities.
Keeping the aforesaid meaning in mind, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned single Judge in allowing WP.No.10143 of 2010 is anyway vitiated.
14) We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the order of the Hon’ble Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
___________________________
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
29th August, 2012.
________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J.
ARS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the constructed showroom located in an adjoining village falls within the advertised trading area for LPG distributorship.
Whether there is inconsistency in HPCL's stand regarding the interpretation of trading area versus advertised location.
Whether the Single Judge's order allowing the petitioner to keep the showroom in the adjoining village requires interference.
C. Venkat Reddy
M. Srinivas
Pinakendra Ghosh
Vilas Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
