Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Mr. Deepak Agarwal vs Union Of India 2018(1) Chn (Cal) 675 On on 28 March, 2019
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
MAT 233 of 2019
With
CAN 1839 of 2019
With
CAN 1840 of 2019
8.03.2019
bm/JR
Mr. Soumaya Majumder
Mr. Prasun Mukherjee
Mr. Deepak Agarwal, ...for the Appellant.
Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay,
Mr. Sujoy Das..........for the appellant in
Mat 233of 2019
Mr.Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Abdur Rakib
...for the writ petitioner/Respondent
Mr. Sanchita Barman Roy .......for the Union of India, Respondent No.2.
Re: MAT 255 of 2019 with CAN 1818 of 2019 This appeal is arising out of an order dated 25th January, 2019 by which the writ petition was allowed and the oil company was directed to proceed with petitioners candidature. The dispute arose out of the advertisement issued for award of LPG distributorship at Hooghly in SC category. The advertisement refers the location for distributorship at Haripal and in block Haripal. The writ petitioner contented before the Learned Single Judge that since the advertisement does not refer to any specific location in Haripal Gram Panchayet, the offered land of Mouza Gopinagar can not be rejected by the oil company by a cryptic communication dated 2nd January 2019. The oil company found that the writ petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria as per 8(J) wrongly typed as 8A(n) of the unified guidelines.
The land offered by the writ petitioner in Mouza- Gopinagar Gram Panchyet, Haripal Ashutosh block Haripal District Hooghly is outside the advertised location.
The Learned Single Judge after recording the submission of the respective parties has held that as per the advertisement advertised location for this particular showroom is Haripal as specified by Block Haripal. Since the petitioner's offered land for showroom is within the advertised location, there is no requirement of any specific Gram Panchyet or Mouza to disqualify the petitioner on such basis. Accordingly the impugned order was set aside.
Learned Single Judge with due respect has overlooked the fact that in the writ petition the petitioner in paragraph 7 has stated that petitioner has applied for said distributorship at Haripal under Haripal Gram Panchyet in District Hooghly whereas the offered land is of a different Mouza and at a different place at Haripal.
Mr. Saha Roy, Learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no specific location mentioned in the advertisement. The learned Senior Counsel has referred to similar advertisements issued by the oil companies to show that as and when there is a requirement of specific location the companies have after referring the place clearly stated exact location or the Municipality. However, in the instant case the advertisement only refers to location Haripal and plot Haripal. The writ petitioners having offered the land in mauja Gopinagar, Gram Panchyet - Haripal Ashutosh, Block Haripal can not be denied consideration of its candidature.
On the other hand, Mr. Majumder, the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the advertisement is clear and unambiguous. It refers to village Haripal. The Learned Counsel has referred to clause (y) and clause 8(j) of the Brochure of Unified Guidelines of Selection of LPG Distributors to show that the location would mean within Municipal/ Town/Village limits.
It is submitted in the instant case Mouja Gopinagar although may belong to Block Haripal, can not be equated with village Haripal. Mr. Majumder has referred to Census 2011 report for the Haripal Block to show that the Haripal has been identified in serial No. 66 as a village inasmuch as the website of Land and Land Reforms and Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department of the Government of West Bengal would show in Block Haripal there are three separate Moujas, namely, Haripal, Kamarchandi and Gopinagar. In this regard he has also referred to the definition of Block and Gram under section 2 sub-section(2) and Section of the West Bengal Panchyat Act, 1973.
Thus it is submitted that the Mouja Gopinagar is not same as mouja Haripal and the advertisement clearly indicate appointment of an LPG distributor at location Haripal.
"Gram" under the Panchyet Act may be any Mouja or part of a Mouja or group of contiguous Moujas or parts thereof provided that in group of Moujas or parts thereof when they are in that contiguous and in any boundaries and separated by an area to which the Panchyet Act does not extend may also be declared to be a Gram. Mouja means an area defined, surveyed and recorded as such in the revenue records of a district and refers to clause 7(g) Article 243 of the Constitution of India. In Ranjit Kumar Rishi -vs- Union of India 2018(1) CHN (CAL) 675 on which Mr. Saha Roy has placed reliance to show that Mouja Gopinagar would pass the test of eligibility, the Hon'ble Division Bench on interpretation of the definition is paragraph 25 has observed. " A plain reading of the above sections indicates that the expression "Village" in english and word "Gram" in Bengali are synonymous. It further transpires that a village generally comprises of one Mouza. There are instances where a village can also comprise of either a part of a Mouza or group of contiguous Mouzas or parts thereof".
We have been referred to section 2 subsection (2) and section 3 of the West Bengal Panchyet Act 1993 for the purpose of ascertaining the meaning of "Block" and "Gram".
Mr. Saher Roy, learned advocate has referred to paragraph nos. 12,25 and 26 of the judgement in Ranjit Kumar Rishi vs. Union of India reported in 2018(1) CHN(CAL) 675 for the proposition that the instant village also part of mouja, group of contiguous mouja or part thereof and having regard to the fact that the land offered under Block and location Haripal it cannot be said that the land offered is in accordance with the advertisement. A District under the Panchyet Act can be divided into Blocks which comprise of such contiguous gram as may be specified under the notification. In the instant case the advertisement is specific as it refers to the location at Haripal and under the Block Haripal. Moreover, the Brochure for the unified guidelines for Selections of LPG distributors, In para 8(J) defines the advertised location to mean "whithin the municipal/town/village limits of the place". In the column location it is mentioned that whenever it is required the place shall be elaborately described.
In the instant case, mouja Haripal has a separate & distinct existence. The location in the Advertisement is Block Haripal only. The writ petitioner also understood that the application for the LPG distributorship is at Haripal. Accordingly offered land at mouja Gopinagar is not what is contemplated in the advertisement for appointment of LPG distributors at Haripal.
In such circumstance we are of the view that the oil company was justified in coming to conclusion that the writ petitioner failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria.
The appeal succeeds. The impugned order is set aside. MAT No. 255 of 2019 with CAN No. 1818 of 2019 is thus allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Re: MAT 233 of 2019 with CAN 1839 of 2019 with CAN 1840 of 2019 The applicant can not be said to be a person aggrieved as the oil company is yet to decide the candidature of the applicant. In any event in view of the order passed in MAT 255 of 2019 the oil company now would be required to take steps for award of LPG distributor at Hooghly in terms of eligibility criteria mentioned in the Advertisement MAT 233 of 2019, CAN 1839 of 2019 and CAN 1840 of 2019 stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Soumen Sen, J.) ( Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)