The case of Tapas Kumar Das vs. HPCL involves a significant dispute over the location of an LPG distributorship. Mr. Tapas Kumar Das challenged HPCL’s decision regarding the eligibility of his offered land in mouza Gopinagar for the distributorship within the Haripal block. The Division Bench’s judgment was recently overturned by the Single Judge, reinstating the order in favor of Mr. Tapas Kumar Das. Let’s delve into the details of this intriguing legal battle.
Facts
- The Single Judge allowed a writ petition by Mr. Tapas Kumar Das and directed HPCL to proceed with his candidature for LPG distributorship.
- The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ appeal by HPCL and set aside the Single Judge’s order.
- The Division Bench held that the location of mouza Haripal had a distinct existence from the offered land at mouza Gopinagar, which did not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the Advertisement.
- Arguments against the Division Bench’s decision included that the Advertisement did not specify any particular mouza for the showroom location, and the appellant had been declared successful after due verification of eligibility.
- HPCL’s counsel argued that the Unified Guidelines clearly outlined the location requirements for obtaining an LPG distributorship, and in West Bengal, villages were identified as mouzas.
- The conflict arose due to the different interpretations of the advertised location and the actual location offered by the appellant within the Block Haripal region.
- The appellant’s counsel argued that since the offered land was within the geographical limits of Haripal Block, it should be considered as meeting the Advertisement’s location requirement.
- HPCL’s counsel supported the Division Bench’s decision based on the clear guidelines and the distinction between mouzas and Gram Panchayats in the Panchayat Act.
- Sujoy Kumar Das lodged a complaint with HPCL questioning the appellant’s candidature based on the location of the land offered for the showroom.
- HPCL had rejected Sujoy Kumar Das’ candidature in a previous selection round for the same location due to a similar issue with the location of the land offered.
- The appellant’s showroom location was considered ineligible as it was beyond the advertised location specified in the brochure for selection of LPG distributorships.
- The deposit made by the appellant was forfeited due to the eligibility criteria not being met.
- The Joint advertisement by HPCL, IOCL, and BPCL listed LPG distributorships at various locations.
- The appellant challenged the cancellation of his candidature through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
- The appellant deposited a demand draft and submitted land documents as per HPCL’s instructions.
- The appellant was initially declared successful in the draw of lots for the distributorship but later had his candidature cancelled by HPCL.
Also Read: Appellant Convicted for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder
Issue
- The limited issues in this appeal are focused on the location of the showroom as per the Advertisement and compliance with Unified Guidelines.
- The Advertisement specified ‘District’, ‘Block’, and ‘Location’ for distributorship, with an additional column for ‘Gram Panchayat’ in Part 1.
- The location was intended to be at Haripal, within Haripal block in Hooghly district, reserved for SC, with ‘Rurban’ as the Type of Market/Distributorship.
- Significance of ‘Rurban’ was not highlighted by the lower courts but will be crucial in the analysis.
Also Read: Ownership Dispute: Commissioner’s Order and Revenue Documents
Arguments
- The appellant’s showroom in mouza Gopinagar made his candidature ineligible as it was not located in mouza Haripal.
- Extending any relief to the appellant could be inappropriate considering the circumstances.
- HPCL had previously rejected the added respondent’s candidature for similar reasons as the appellant’s distributorship cancellation.
- The added respondent was a necessary party in the High Court case and their appeal was also decided in the impugned judgment.
Also Read: Scope of Judicial Review in Preventive Detention Cases
Analysis
- The Advertisement did not specifically mention ‘Gram Panchayat’ for the subject location, leading to confusion.
- The location mentioned as Haripal in Sl. No. 624 lacked detailed particulars.
- Judicial notice was taken that Haripal is a part of Chandannagore sub-division in the Hooghly district of West Bengal.
- The Census 2011 Report indicated that Haripal and Gopinagar are villages within Haripal block.
- The Court rejected HPCL’s claim that the appointment of an LPG distributor was intended for Haripal village due to inadequate information in the Advertisement.
- HPCL’s argument regarding not mentioning ‘Gram Panchayat’ for locations categorized as ‘Urban’ or ‘Semi-Urban’ was deemed insufficient.
- The Court highlighted the inconsistency in the advertisement locations, showing the problematic wording of Sl. No. 624.
- The Court emphasized that a court cannot modify the qualifications in an advertisement to suit specific interests.
- The issue of construing ‘Haripal’ as the village location was discussed in contrast with ‘Rurban’ categorization.
- The appellant’s lack of awareness regarding the specific requirements for the distributorship location was taken into account.
- Reference was made to Konnagar town as an example, emphasizing the importance of understanding the exact location mentioned in the advertisement.
- The representation in an advertisement binds the issuing authority, and any argument should have been mentioned in the pleadings.
- The Court focused on determining if the appellant’s candidature fell within the scope of the location as indicated in the Advertisement.
- The first issue raised by the petitioner was answered in the affirmative.
- The second issue was answered in the negative.
- Challenging such action by instituting an appropriate proceeding was necessary.
- The present appeal was deemed inappropriate for addressing the grievance.
- Court cannot look into the grievance in the present appeal.
Decision
- The present appeal is allowed, and parties will bear their own costs.
- Pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
- No part of the observations in the judgement should be considered as an opinion on further requirements/compliances regarding HPCL proceeding with the appellant’s candidature for the LPG distributorship.
- HPCL is advised to proceed promptly to meet the needs of its future customers as the advertisement is over half a decade old.
- The Division Bench’s judgment is set aside, and the Single Judge’s order is restored.
Case Title: TAPAS KUMAR DAS Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (2024 INSC 225)
Case Number: C.A. No.-004420-004420 / 2024
