Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Sk. Amanullah vs Union Of India & Ors.) on 5 December, 2019
1 625 05.12.2019
CL C.A.N. 6833 of 2019
pg In
M.A.T. 978 of 2019
(Sk. Amanullah vs. Union of India & Ors.) Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee Mr. Nemai Ch. Betal ............for the appellant-
applicant Mr. Pushpendu Chakraborty Mr. Debabrata Sen...............for the BPCL Aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition [W.P. 6374(W) of 2019] by the order dated July 01, 2019 passed by a learned Judge, the appellant has invoked our appellate powers.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereafter the 'Corporation') issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment of an LPG distributor, inter alia, at Kotebari. It was subsequently found that no mouza by the name of Kotebari exists. However, prior to the process being kept in abeyance by the Corporation, the appellant participated in the draw of lots and was selected. He had offered a land at Kotebarh and had claimed that the Corporation ought to consider such land as qualifying for appointment as distributor. Since the Corporation did not accept the appellant's prayer, he had the occasion to approach the learned Judge of the writ Court.
The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
"...........In the facts of the present case, the Oil Company having undertaken the tender process by inviting the public at large to participate at Kotebari and after having found the incorrectness therein, sought to rectify the name by cancelling the tender process. Public at large were called upon to participate in the tender process at Kotebari. In the event, the tender process is allowed to take place, public at large will not be informed that the oil company essentially wants to appoint a LPG distributor at Kotebarh rather 2 than Kotebari. Therefore, the action of the Oil Company in cancelling such tender process cannot be faulted."
Although the learned Judge may not have been quite right in observing that the Corporation had cancelled the selection process, the reason assigned for dismissal of the writ petition appears to be quite justified. There could be members of the public, who may not have applied noticing the location as Kotebari. Once the advertisement was issued and the ball was set in motion, it would not be open to the Corporation to change the name of the location from Kotebari to Kotebarh. That would have amounted to changing the rules of the game after the game had commenced.
We are of the considered opinion that the learned Judge was right in not accepting the prayer of the appellant. In the fitness of things, the Corporation should now proceed to advertise afresh giving the exact location where the appointment is to be made and if such an advertisement is made, the appellant shall be entitled to participate in such process alongwith others.
However, since the appellant deposited Rs. 30,000/- on December 21, 2017 and the process is to be started afresh because of the fault of the Corporation, such amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall be returned to the appellant together with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of a month from date. At the same time, if any original document of the appellant is lying in the custody of the Corporation, the same shall also be returned while returning the money with interest.
Except to the extent mentioned above, the 3 appeal stands dismissed.
In view of such order, nothing survives for decision on the application for stay (C.A.N. 6833 of 2019) and the same also stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously. (PROTIK PRAKASH BANERJEE, J.) (DIPANKAR DATTA, J.)