Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley and Ors.

Introduction: 

The case is about the dispute regarding the allocation of an LPG distribution in Jamalpur, District Burdwan. In this the appellant applied for the distributorship in response to an advertisement issued 9.9.12. After this in the draw of lots it was held that on 11.05.2013, the appellant was the successful candidate and was granted approval for starting distributorship on 3.06.2014.  After four years the respondent filed a complaint alleging that the land offered by the appellant is not good for the construction and due to this appellant providing them a different land which was accepted by them. The respondent, being aggrieved by the decision of corporation to permit the appellant to commence construction on the alternate land, filed a writ petition in 2017. This petition was dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi, but an intra-court appeal led to the appellate court setting aside the allotment made in favour of the appellant. 

Facts of the case:

On September 9, 2012, a notice was published in Jamalpur, District Burdwan, soliciting applications for LPG distributorships under the GP Category. Among the applications received, the applications submitted by respondent No. 1 and the appellant were determined to be in order. On May 11, 2013, a draw of lots was held to choose the winning candidate. After being deemed successful, the appellant was chosen to have their documents verified. On June 3, 2014, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) approved the appellant’s request to begin an LPG distributorship at the designated site.  Response No. 1’s Complaint: Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with BPCL four years later, claiming that the appellant’s provided land was inappropriate since it was Barga land. The appellant submitted alternative land for building in answer to the complaint, and BPCL approved it. On the other plot of land, construction on the go down and showroom started. In 2017, Respondent No. 1, feeling wronged by the Corporation’s choice to approve building on a different piece of property, filed a writ petition contesting the allocation given to the appellant. Rejection and Appeal: The Learned Single Judge first denied the writ petition due to a lack of locus standi. Nevertheless, the appellate court overturned the allocation made in the appellant’s favour following an intra-court appeal.

Issues raised:

1. Whether the respondent No. 1 (the writ petitioner) was entitled to relief in spite of the lengthy delay in filing the writ suit contesting the appellant’s allocation?
2. Whether the allotment process’s criteria were broken, especially in relation to the appropriateness of the land the appellant offered?
3. Whether the selection procedure and any subsequent allocation might be retroactively affected by changes to the criteria issued after the call for distributorship applications?
4. whether respondent No. 1 had the ability to contest the allocation legally (locus standi) even if they took part in the application and selection procedure?

Contention of the Appellant:

1. According to the appellant, they were duly granted the distributorship by means of a drawing of lots, a letter of intent and ensuing permissions for the building of essential infrastructure. They said that the distribution was carried out in compliance with the approved protocol and directives. 
2. They made it clear that, after taking the land’s appropriateness and requirements into consideration, the Corporation had accepted their offer of alternate land for the construction of the godown and showroom.
3. The appellant contested the validity of retroactively applying guidelines revisions, especially those issued subsequent to the distributorship application advertising. 
4. They contended that because respondent No.1, the writ petitioner, had accepted the appellant’s allocation for a number of years prior to contesting it, their failure to act promptly in filing the writ petition ought to exclude them from requesting relief.

Contention of the Respondent:

1. The respondent contended that certain guidelines pertaining to the selection of regular LPG Distributors were broken by the allocation given to the appellant. They claimed that the property provided by the appellant for the godown and showroom did not fulfil the required standards and emphasised purported flaws in the site. 
2. They stressed that it was wrong to make retroactive changes to the rules and that they shouldn’t have been permitted in this particular situation. The respondent argued that the appellant’s substitute land offer should not have been approved since it did not follow the original rules.
3. The respondent contested the appellant’s ability to contest the writ petition, claiming that because they had taken part in the selection process and then accepted the alternative land that was given, they did not have locus standi.
4. They refuted the appellant’s claim of laches and claimed that the writ petition’s filing was reasonable in light of the purported guidelines breaches and the necessity to safeguard their distributorship interests.

Judgement:

1. The Supreme Court emphasised the idea that laches and delays might deny a party the right to request discretionary remedy. They observed that, while being aware of the occurrences since 2014, the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1) had waited a long time to contest the allocation made in favour of the appellant. As a result, the court determined that the respondent’s unjustifiable delay in contacting the court was unfounded.
2. The appellant’s argument that the allocation made in their favour was legitimate was supported by the court. They emphasised that the appellant had complied with the requirements, obtained the required permissions from the Corporation, and offered alternative land as allowed. The Corporation’s determination that the appellant’s alternative property was appropriate for godown construction was acknowledged by the Court.
3. The respondent’s claim for the retroactive application of guidelines changes was denied by the court. They concluded that the changes permitting the provision of substitute land were legitimate and had been applied correctly in this particular instance.
4. In the end, the Supreme Court overturned the Division Bench’s ruling and reinstated the Learned Single Judge’s order. This made all further licences, approvals, and objections granted in the appellant’s favour enforceable and reinstated the allotment made in their favour.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court stressed the significance of taking legal action as soon as possible. It stated that the respondent only decided to contest the appellant’s allocation after much deliberation, even though it had been known about it since 2014. The respondent’s petition was dismissed as a result of this unreasonable delay. This feature emphasises how important prompt legal action is for resolving disputes.
2. The appellant’s allotment was affirmed by the court as legitimate. It concluded that the appellant had adhered to the rules, including providing substitute land when allowed, and had followed due procedure. The appellant’s case was strengthened even more by the Corporation’s acceptance of the substitute land. This feature emphasises how crucial it is to follow the rules of procedure and how important it is to have documentation to back up your claims in court.
3. The Court dismissed the argument for applying the guidelines’ revisions retroactively. It concluded that the changes permitting the provision of substitute land were legitimate and had been applied appropriately in this particular instance. This emphasises the idea that, even in the event of later revisions, legal laws should be read and applied in line with their intended intent.
4. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s allocation by overturning the Division Bench’s ruling and reinstating the Learned Single Judge’s order. This upheld the rule of law that appellate courts must thoroughly examine judgements from lower courts and reverse them only in cases where glaring mistakes or legal infractions are present.

Conclusion:

The case highlights the significance of taking legal action quickly and the negative effects of postponing and being lazy while pursuing justice. The significance of promptly using legal remedies is demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the respondent’s petition because of the lengthy delay in contesting the allotment. Then case emphasises how important it is to follow rules and procedures related to procedure. Noting that appropriate procedure had been followed and the appellant had met with pertinent requirements, including offering alternate land as permissible, the Court maintained the legitimacy of the allotment granted in favour of the appellant. Moreover, the idea that legislative provisions should be understood and used in accordance with their intended meaning is reaffirmed by the Court’s rejection of the argument about the retroactive implementation of guidelines revisions. In the end, the appellant’s allocation was restored by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Division Bench’s judgement and reinstate the Learned Single Judge’s order. This emphasises the judiciary’s responsibility to closely examine judgements from subordinate courts and guarantee that justice is administered in compliance with the law.

Reference: 

1. SCC Online.
2. https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/article-226-delay-defeats-equity-hc-should-dismiss-writ-petition-if-petitioner-is-guilty-of-delay-or-laches-supreme-court-255643.

This article is written by Shivansh Raj student of Tamil Nadu National Law; Intern at Legal Vidhiya. 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin