Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Prasanta Kumar Biswas vs Union Of India & Ors on 15 March, 2019
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1
15.03.2019
S/L No.5
Court No.37
(gc)
MAT 1164 of 2018
With
CAN 8050 of 2018
Prasanta Kumar Biswas.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Abdul Hadi,
...for the Appellant.
Mr. Pushpendu Chakraborty,
...for the Respondents Nos.2 to 6.
The appeal is arising out of an order dated 3rd September, 2018 by which the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner was not eligible for the dealership. The petitioner applied for award of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) regular Dealership with the Oil Company pursuant to a selection process undertaken by the Oil Company. The petitioner was disqualified in the selection process on the ground that the petitioner did not offer any land for godown and showroom. The impugned order dated 1st January, 2015 by which the writ petitioner was held to be disqualified was challenged in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.
Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the advertisement published in the Newspaper clearly submits that 2 the applicant would be required to furnish such documents as may be available with the candidate within a specified time and further documents may be produced at the time of field verification to establish the eligibility of the candidate. The respondent-Company was aware from the documents submitted by the writ petitioner that he was an agreement holder in respect of the land in question and, thereafter, the application was processed and a field verification was carried out by the respondent. The respondent after such exercise could not have rejected the application on the specious plea that he is not eligible for the said dealership.
Mr. Chatterjee has submitted that the word "transfer" under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act has to be liberally construed and it was improper on the part of the Oil Company to reject the said application only on the ground that at the time when the application was submitted, the applicant was only an agreement holder. However, by the time the field verification took place, he had registered the conveyance in respect of the said property. Mr. Chatterjee has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narandas Karsondas v. S.A. Kamtam & Anr. reported at AIR 1977 SC 774 Paragraph 23 in support of the aforesaid submission.
3
In order to appreciate the said argument, it is necessary for us to find out the eligibility criteria. The brochure guidelines for the selection for regular LPG Dealership are applicable in the instant case.
Under Clause 6.1(vii), it is stated that the applicant should 'own' a plot of land or a storage godown as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. The relevant portion of the said Clause is reproduced below:-
"vii. A plot of land of minimum dimensions 25M X 30M (within 15 km from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) for construction of LPG Godown for storage of 8000 Kg of LPG in cylinders. The plot of land for construction of godown not meeting the minimum dimensions of 25M X 30M will not be considered.
Or a ready LPG cylinder storage godown (within 15km from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) of 8000 Kg capacity."
Thereafter, with reference to the said Clause, the 'ownership' was defined in the following manner:-
"'Own' means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 years 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 4 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."
It is trite law that an agreement for sale does not create any interest in any immovable property. In fact, the judgments cited by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant also reiterate the said principle. If any further reference is required, one may conveniently refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Vithal Kadam v. Sunil Baburaoi Kadam reported at (2018) 2 SCC 82. It is an admitted position that as on the last date for submission of the application, the applicant was not the owner of the land. No interest was created in favour of the writ petitioner. If such a relaxation is now shown in favour of the appellant then persons similarly situated would be deprived of the benefit of such relaxation.
In our view, the learned Single Judge on proper interpretation of the various guidelines after the selection of regular LPG Dealership had rejected the said application and did not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Oil Company for rejecting the application on the ground that the petitioner did not offer any land for godown and showroom. We are in agreement with the said finding of the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails. 5
The appeal being MAT 1164 of 2018 and the stay application being CAN 8050 of 2018 are dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking.
(Soumen Sen, J.) (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)