Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/6813/2018 on 7 April, 2022
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010227652018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Writ Petition (C) 7124/2018
Jesmin Ahmed
W/o After Rohman,
R/o Merapani Town,
P.O. & P.S. Merapani,
District - Golaghat, Assam, 785705
...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director
Indian Oil Bhawan, Lodhi Road
New Delhi, 110011
2. The Executive Director [LPG]
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indian Oil Bhawan
G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandhra [East], Mumbai
3. Deputy General Manager [LPG-S]
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Sripuri, District - Tinsukia, Assam, 786125
4. Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office,
IO-AOD, Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Sripuri, District - Tinsukia, Assam, 786125
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat
District - Golaghat, Assam, 785621
6. Circle Officer, Golaghat Revenue Circle
P.O. & P.S. Golaghat, Assam, 785621
7. Range Forest Officer, Jamuguri Range
Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Golaghat
P.O. Golaghat, Assam, 785621
...................Respondents
Page No.# 2/18 Writ Petition (C) 6813/2018 Sri Dipak Das S/o Sri Baluram Das, R/o Krishnaswami Gaon, P.O. & P.S. Merapani, District - Golaghat, Assam, 785705 ...............Petitioner
-Versus-
1. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Indian Oil Bhawan, Lodhi Road New Delhi, 110011
2. The Executive Director [LPG] Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhawan G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandhra [East], Mumbai
3. Deputy General Manager [LPG-S] Indian Oil Corporation Limited Sripuri, District - Tinsukia, Assam, 786125
4. Chief Area Manager, Indane Area Office, IO-AOD, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Sripuri, District - Tinsukia, Assam, 786125
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat District - Golaghat, Assam, 785621
6. Border Magistrate, D-Sector, Merapani Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer [Civil] Merapani, District - Golaghat, 78575 ...................Respondents Advocates :
Petitioners : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate
[both writ petitions] Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate
Respondent nos. 1 - 4 : Mr. D.K. Sarma, Standing Counsel,
[both writ petitions] Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL]
Respondent no. 5 & 6 : Mr. B. Deori, Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam
Page No.# 3/18
[both writ petitions]
Respondent no. 7 : Mr. D. Gogoi, Standing Counsel,
[W.P.(C) 7124/2018] Environment & Forest Department
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 07.04.2022
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAL]
Both the writ petitions - W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 & W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018, preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, are relatable to an Advertisement dated 25.05.2018 published jointly by 3 [three] public sector Oil Marketing Companies [OMCs] viz. [i] Indian Oil Corporation Limited [IOCL]; [ii] Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited [BPCL]; and [iii] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. By the Advertisement, applications were invited from candidates for Liquefied Petroleum Gas [LPG] Distributorships in respect of 93 nos. of locations across the State of Assam. Amongst those locations, serial no. 17 was in respect of a location at Village - Chalang Pathar, Gaon Panchayat - Doyang, Block - Gomariguri, District - Golaghat and serial no. 32 was in respect of a location at Village - Gomariguri, Gaon Panchayat - Arunachal, Block - Gomariguri, District - Golaghat. The type of LPG Distributorships in respect of both the locations was Gramin Vitrak and both the locations had been reserved for the candidates belonging to the open category.
2. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 is an applicant for LPG distributorship for the location at Chalang Pathar whereas the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018 is an applicant for LPG distributorship for the location at Gomariguri. Both the petitioners have contended that in response to the said Advertisement, they had submitted their applications on or before the last date fixed for submission of such applications, by depositing the requisite fees.
2.1. For the process of selection of candidates for different categories of LPG distributorships including the category of Gramin Vitrak, defined therein, the Oil Marketing Page No.# 4/18 Companies [OMCs] including the IOCL, have to strictly follow the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributors ['the Unified Guidelines', for short] framed in the year 2017. One of the criteria of eligibility laid down in the Advertisement is that the candidate should 'own' a plot of land meeting the conditions laid down in the Unified Guidelines. Both the petitioners have claimed that they have submitted the details of the plots of land wherein the proposed LPG distributorships would be set up along with their applications.
2.2. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 was shortlisted for the draw of lots to be held for selection of LPG distributorship for the location at Chalang Pathar. The name of the petitioner figured in the list of 11 nos. of candidates shortlisted by the respondent IOCL authorities. The draw of lots for the location at Chalang Pathar was held on 27.07.2018 and in the said draw of lots, the petitioner was declared as the successful candidate for the location at Chalang Pathar and the same was communicated to her by the respondent IOCL authorities vide a letter dated 28.07.2018.
2.3. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018 was also shortlisted amongst 26 nos. of candidates by the respondent IOCL authorities for the draw of lots to be held for selection of LPG distributorship for the location at Gomariguri. The petitioner had emerged as the successful candidate for the location at Gomariguri in the draw of lots conducted on 27.07.2018 and the same was communicated to him by the respondent IOCL authorities by a letter dated 28.07.2018.
2.4. Both the petitioners - by the two letters, both dated 28.07.2018 - were asked to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000/- each in terms of the provisions of the Unified Guidelines and to submit the set of documents specified therein within 7 [seven] working days to the respondent IOCL authorities. It was intimated that Field Verification of Credentials [FVC] would be carried on a designated date and time and the information submitted by the petitioners in their respective application form would be verified with the original documents. The petitioners were asked to produce the original documents during the FVC. It was further informed that their candidatures would be rejected if they were not able to produce the original documents at the time of FVC or if during the FVC, it was found that the information submitted by the petitioners in the application forms were Page No.# 5/18 false/incorrect/misrepresented affecting the eligibility.
2.5. In response to the letters dated 28.07.2018, both the petitioners stated to have deposited the requisite amounts and the documents asked to be submitted by the respondent IOCL authorities. Subsequent to 28.07.2018, the FVCs were carried out by the FVC Committee constituted by the respondent IOCL at both the locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri.
2.6. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 was informed by the respondent IOCL authorities by a letter dated 11.09.2018 that upon field verification of the information submitted by her, variance was observed to the effect that she did not have clear ownership of land for godown and showroom in the advertised location at Chalang Pathar as on the last date of submission of the application. The petitioner was, thereby, informed that her candidature for the location at Chalang Pathar was rejected and the amount of Rs. 40,000/- she had deposited with the respondent IOCL authorities stood forfeited in line with the terms and conditions of the Advertisement.
2.7. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018 was also informed by the respondent IOCL authorities by a letter dated 11.09.2018 wherein it was reported that during the field verification of the information submitted him, it was detected that he did not have clear ownership land for godown and showroom in the advertised location at Gomariguri as the land lease document submitted by him was not registered. It was informed to him that his candidature for the location at Gomariguri was rejected and the amount of Rs. 40,000/- he had deposited with the respondent IOCL authorities stood forfeited.
2.8. Aggrieved by such rejection of their respective candidature, both the petitioners have approached this Court by the two writ petitions seeking inter alia a direction to set aside and quash the impugned decision taken by the respondent IOCL authorities whereby the petitioners' candidatures for the LPG distributorships at the two advertised locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri respectively, were rejected. The petitioners have also sought for a direction to the respondent IOCL authorities to award LPG distributorships in favour of Page No.# 6/18 the two petitioners at the afore-stated two locations.
3. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions; Mr. D.K. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, IOCL for the respondent nos. 1 - 4 in both the writ petitions; Mr. B. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 5 & 6 in both the writ petitions; and Mr. D. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Environment and Forest Department for the respondent no. 7 in W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018.
4. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for both the petitioners has submitted that both the advertised locations are under the Gramin Vitrak category as per the Unified Guidelines. The identification of the two locations have been made by the respondent IOCL authorities prior to the Advertisement dated 25.05.2018. Both the writ petitioners had emerged successful in the draw of lots held amongst the eligible candidates. It is a condition in the Unified Guidelines that in the event the offered land for godown and/or offered land for showroom by the selected candidate is not found meeting the eligibility conditions/requirements as stipulated in the advertisement/brochure/application, then one- time option for offering an alternative land is to be provided to all the selected candidates in writing by the FVC committee within 15 [fifteen] days time. Thus, without providing such option, it is not open for the respondent IOCL authorities to reject the candidature of a successful candidate in the draw of lots in an outright manner. It is his contention that no option was provided in the case of the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018. It is his further contention that had the one-time opportunity been granted to the petitioner, the petitioner could have availed the opportunity to submit land documents meeting the eligibility criteria as laid down in the Unified Guidelines.
4.1. He has further contended that during the pendency of these two writ petitions, it has emerged that the two advertised locations fall within reserve forest areas and as such, it cannot be envisaged that the lands offered by any of the applicants would meet the eligibility criteria, set forth by the respondent IOCL authorities. Since the petitioners were declared as the successful candidates, the respondent IOCL authorities should have accepted the land documents submitted by the petitioners. It is his contention that the Page No.# 7/18 respondent IOCL authorities have already awarded one retail outlet of Petroleum and HSD products at Gomariguri location and one Kerosene depot at a location in Merapani Daily Bazar. Both the said retail outlet of Petroleum and HSD products and the Kerosene depot are located in similar kind of areas like Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri and those were awarded on the basis of documents similar to the ones submitted by the two petitioners herein.
4.2. He has submitted that at this stage also, the respondent IOCL authorities can award the LPG distributorships in favour of the two petitioners considering the fact that there was/is no land at the two advertised locations which would meet the eligibility criteria laid down by themselves in the Unified Guidelines.
4.3. Mr. Mahanta has further contended that the locations have been selected based on the criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines and as such, the respondent IOCL authorities are not permitted to withdraw themselves from setting up the LPG distributorships at the two advertised locations at their whims. It is also his contention that a different standard has been adopted in respect of the locations in the State of Kerala and the same standard should be adopted in the case in hand also. He has contended that the respondent IOCL authorities should now change the category of both the locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri from Gramin Vitrak to Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak [DKV] category and award the LPG distributorships to the petitioners.
5. Mr. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, IOCL has submitted that the stand of the respondents in both the writ petitions is same. As per the Unified Guidelines, the applicant must have owned a plot of land in terms of Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines as on the last date of submission of the application. The last date of submission of the application in these cases was 25.06.2018. As the land documents submitted by the two petitioners, during the field verification, were found not meeting the eligibility criteria in terms of Clause 1[w], the FVC Committee had rejected the candidatures of the two petitioners.
5.1. Elaborating further, Mr. Sarma has submitted that the land offered by the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 was not under a revenue village but under a reserved forest named Doyang Reserve Forest. On the other hand, the petitioner in the writ Page No.# 8/18 petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018 did not submit a lease deed in support of his offered plots of land and the two plots of land offered by him were also not in any revenue village but inside forest areas.
5.2. Mr. Sarma has submitted that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent IOCL authorities have come to learn that there is no possibility of having plots of land meeting the eligibility criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines for setting up LPG Distributorships at the two advertised locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri. By referring to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1-4 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018, Mr. Sarma has submitted that having received clarification from the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat that Doyang, Merapani, Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri villages are not revenue villages and that they fall under the Doyang Reserve Forest, the respondent IOCL authorities have taken a conscious decision to drop both the two advertised locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri since no one would be able to provide land documents, as desired by the IOCL in terms of the Unified Guidelines. A decision has also been taken to refund the FVC fees to the candidates selected at the draw of lots.
6. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Environment & Forest Department has submitted that the location at Chalang Pathar falls under Jamuguri Range of the Doyang Reserve Forest. The respondent no. 7 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 has clarified that installation of LPG distributorship inside a reserve forest would be a non-forest activity and would attract the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980. For any non-forest activity, a diversion proposal is required to be approved by the Central Government. It is his submission that the land offered by the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 falls under the Doyang Reserve Forest. It is also submitted by him that from the certificate issued by the Range Officer in respect of the said petitioner's offered land has reflected that the said land is an encroached land. He has also referred to the provisions of the Assam Forest Regulations, 1891 to buttress his submissions.
7. The submission of Mr. Deori, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam is to the Page No.# 9/18 effect that the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, in his affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018, has clarified that both the villages i.e. Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri are not revenue villages. The Forest Department only issues annual pattas in respect of forest villages. The Revenue Department by a notification dated 31.07.1988, published in the Official Gazette, had declared that both the advertised locations fall within the notified areas of the Doyang Reserve Forest.
8. I have duly considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings.
9. The background events leading to the rejection of the candidature of the two petitioners have already been narrated above.
10. The Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG distributors ['the Unified Guidelines'] has provided for the procedure of selection of distributors of Liquefied Petroleum Gas [LPG] for all locations advertised for LPG distributorships. The Unified Guidelines have been made effective from June, 2017. LPG distributors are selected for four types of distributorship areas and they are (i) Sheheri Vitrak; (ii) Rurban Vitrak; (iii) Gramin Vitrak; and (iv) Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak [DKV]. Gramin Vitrak. LPG distributorships are set up in rural areas to serve the LPG customers of the specified rural areas. A Gramin Vitrak LPG distributorship generally covers all villages within 15 [fifteen] kilometres from the boundary limits of the LPG distributorship location and or the area specified by the respective OMCs. As per the Unified Guidelines, 'Village' means the basic unit for rural areas which is the revenue village with definite surveyed boundaries and 'Location' means the area identified for setting up of new LPG distributorship. It can be a locality/village/cluster of villages/town or city which is mentioned in the notice for appointment of LPG distributors. The word 'Rural Area' will have the definition of 'Rural' as per the Census 2011. Clause 3 of the Unified Guidelines mentions about identification of locations. Locations for setting up LPG distributorships are identified based on available refill sale potential, which can sustain economically viable operation of an LPG distributorship. It is the duty of the Oil Marketing Companies [OMCs] to aim at covering all the areas of the country so that every household in the country has access to LPG. The Page No.# 10/18 setting up of LPG distributorships at the identified locations is a business proposition that has risk and does not guarantee any assured returns or profits. The feasibility study for setting up of new LPG distributorship is to be based on refill sale potential and refill sale potential is based on the number of households, per capita consumption, LPG coverage and the existing/proposed PNG connections, if any.
11. Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines is of relevance and the relevant excerpts are, for ready reference, reproduced hereinunder :-
"w. 'Ownership' or 'Own' for godown / showroom for Sheheri Vitrak, Rurban Vitrak, Gramin Vitrak and Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak Type of Distributorship means having :
a. Ownership title of the property Or b. Registered lease deed having minimum 15 years of valid lease period commencing on any day from the date of advertisement up to the last date of submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum [if any].
Additionally, applicants having registered lease deed commencing on any date prior to the date of advertisement will also be considered provided the lease is valid for a minimum period of 15 years from the date of advertisement. The applicant should have ownership as defined under the term 'Own' above in the name of applicant / member of 'Family Unit' [as defined in multiple dealership / distributorship norm of eligibility criteria] / parents [includes Step Father/Step Mother], grandparents [both maternal and paternal], Brother/Sister [including Step Brother & Step Sister], Son/Daughter [including Step Son/Step Daughter], Son-in-law/Daughter-in-law; of the applicant or the spouse [in case of married applicant] as on last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum [if any]. In case of ownership/co-ownership by family member[s] as given above, consent in the form of declaration from the family member[s] will be required.
In case the share of land in the jointly owned property by the applicant / member of Page No.# 11/18 'Family Unit' as defined in multiple dealership / distributorship norm / parent & grandparents [both maternal and paternal] of the applicant or the spouse with any other person[s] meets the requirement of land including the dimensions required, then that land for godown / showroom should qualify for eligibility as 'own' land subject to submission of 'No Objection Certificate' in the form of declaration from other owner[s]. "
12. As per the common eligibility criteria, an applicant apart from meeting the other eligibility criteria, should 'own' a plot of land of capacity, minimum dimensions as specified therein for construction of LPG Godown or 'own' a ready LPG Cylinder Storage Godown as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or Corrigendum, if any.
13. From the records of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018, it has clearly emerged that the petitioner had offered a plot of land measuring 3 Bighas. The status of the said plot of land has been reported by the Forest Ranger, In-charge, Jamuguri Forest Range to the effect that the petitioner has in her possession the said a plot of land in the Jamuguri Forest Range, Golaghat Forest Division. It is also clarified by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat in the affidavit-in-opposition that the location at Chalang Pathar is not a revenue village and it falls under the Doyang Reserve Forest. The Deputy Commissioner has also clarified that the land offered by the petitioner is under a reserve forest and the same has been allotted to her by the respondent no. 7. It has further been clarified that the Forest Department issues only annual pattas in relation to the forest villages like Chalang Pathar. From the letter dated 05.02.2020 communicated by the respondent no. 7 to the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat, it is noticed that the status of Chalang Pathar has been identified as an encroached village.
13.1. The forest villages are established within the limits of any reserve forest sites in terms of 'the Rules for Establishment and Control of Forest Villages' ['the Forest Villages Rules', for short] framed under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. Rule 1 of the Forest Villages Rules states that forest villages may be established within the limits of any reserved forest sites the location of which shall be approved by the Conservator of Forests in writing. Rule 2 states that forest villages are designed for the purpose of providing a source of the suitable Page No.# 12/18 local labour and for forming and maintaining plantations and taungyas, and no castes which are not habituated to living and working in the forest are eligible for admission. The subletting of land by a forest villager is prohibited under Rule 7. Rule 14 of the Forest Villages Rules has conferred power to the Forest Department to resume occupation of land allotted to a forest villager by giving six months to the occupier.
13.2. From the stands taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat and the Forest Department, it has emerged that the plot of land offered by the petitioner for setting up LPG distributorship at the location at Chalang Pathar has atleast two deficiencies, firstly, it does fall within a revenue village and, secondly, it falls under a reserved forest i.e. Doyang Reserve Forest. The said status about her offered plot of land for the LPG distributorship has not been disputed by the petitioner. As a result, it is clear that the petitioner's offered plot of land does not meet the eligibility criteria set forth in Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines. The FVC Committee, constituted by the respondent IOCL and entrusted to carry out the verification of the details provided by the petitioner and to check suitability of land offered by the petitioner for Godown and showroom, came to detect such deficiencies during the Field Verification of Credentials [FVC]. After detection of such deficiencies, the petitioner was informed by the letter dated 11.09.2018 that her candidature for LPG distributorship for the location at Chalang Pathar was rejected as she did not have clear ownership of land for Godown and showroom in the advertised location as on the last date of submission of application.
14. The petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018, offered a plot of land measuring 1 [one] Bigha located at 5 no. Gomariguri. In support of such fact, the petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 17.05.2018 issued by the respondent no. 6 i.e. the Border Magistrate, D-Sector, Merapani. A perusal of the said certificate dated 17.05.2018 goes to show that the respondent no. 6 therein had certified to the effect that the petitioner has been encroaching 1 [one] Bigha of forest land inside the Doyang Reserve Forest. When the FVC Committee after carrying out the verification and checking the suitability of the said plot of land measuring 1 [one] offered by the petitioner for the LPG distributorship, rejected the said plot of land during the Field Verification of Credentials [FVC], the petitioner offered another plot of land measuring 1 [one] Bigha on the strength of a lease agreement. The Page No.# 13/18 lease agreement the petitioner executed with the lessor [Sri Rajib Lochan Das] on 17.05.2018 mentions that the lessor is in possession of a plot of land measuring 5 [five] Bighas of encroached forest land at Village - 5 no. Gomariguri within Jamuguri Forest Range and the lessor has leased out a plot of land measuring 1 [one] Bigha, out of that 5 [five] Bighas of encroached forest land, to the petitioner for a period of 20 [twenty] years.
14.1. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner himself that the entire location of Gomariguri under Block - Gomariguri, District - Golaghat is an area bordering Assam and Nagaland and a large chunk of the area is reserved as forest land under the Doyang Reserve Forest. It is admitted by the petitioner that no Periodic Patta is issued in respect of any of the localities in that area. It is on the basis of uninterrupted possession for decades, the Government from time to time has been issuing certificates showing possession of persons on the basis of their individual applications.
14.2. From the above discussion, it has clearly emerged that none of the two plots of land offered by the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018 for setting up LPG distributorship at the location, Gomariguri meets the eligibility criteria set forth in Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines. None of the two plots of land falls within any revenue village. Moreover, both the plots of land fall within the areas of the Doyang Reserve Forest, a notified reserve forest. The petitioner does not have the ownership in respect of the first plot of land as it is an encroached plot of land inside a notified reserve forest. The second plot of land, offered by placing a lease agreement, is also within the same notified reserve forest. Moreover, The lease agreement dated 17.05.2018 so submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 6813/2018 is not a registered agreement, but only a notarized agreement.
15. From the status of the two plots of land offered by the two petitioners for setting up of LPG distributorships at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri, it has clearly emerged that both the plots of land fall within the Doyang Reserve Forest, a notified reserve forest. When the plots of land offered by the two petitioners are examined in the context of the criteria laid down in Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines, there appears to be no doubt that the same do not meet the eligibility criteria laid down in the Unified Guidelines.
Page No.# 14/18
16. As has been noted above, having learnt about the nature of lands available at the two advertised locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri, the respondent IOCL authorities have taken a decision to drop the said two locations from the purview of allotment of LPG distributorships. It has been observed time and again that the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is fairness in action by the State or an agency/instrumentality of the State and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fairplay. While exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court does not and is not expected to act as a court of appeal to examine any administrative decision taken in matters like evaluation of applications submitted pursuant to an advertisement for award of LPG distributorships or for that matter, for grant of largesse including award of contracts, quotas, licences, etc. It is not supposed to give a finding in respect of matters like an administration decision made in relation to such matters as to whether the decision could have been made in a different manner in the facts and circumstances of the case. When the Court exercises the power of judicial review in respect of any process initiated by an advertisement for awarding of any benefit like the case in hand, it primarily examines whether there has been any infirmity in the decision-making process or whether the decision-making process in vitiated due to non-adherence to any of the essential conditions or any statutory provisions or is guided by any irrelevant or extraneous factors or mala fide, etc. It is settled that the State or an agency/instrumentality of the State as the authority inviting applications has a free hand in setting the terms and conditions of the process and only in the event the terms and conditions of the process are found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide or actuated by favourism, the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review can interfere. The Court does not ordinarily interfere with the terms and conditions of the process prescribed by the State or an agency/instrumentality of the State as the authority inviting applications because it feels that some other terms in the process would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Court does not ordinarily make any direction to revise the terms and conditions of any competitive process.
17. In a process like the one in hand, submission of an application in response to an advertisement is no more than making an offer which the State or the Page No.# 15/18 agency/instrumentality of the State like the IOCL is under no obligation to accept. An applicant participating in a competitive process cannot insist that his application should be accepted simply because his application is the most suitable or it meets the eligibility criteria whether the contract is for public property or for execution of works or for award of any benefit like LPG distributorship. All that a participating applicant is entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of his application. It is only to that extent an applicant has an enforceable right and the Court can examine whether the applicant has been treated fairly or meted out a discriminatory treatment.
18. It is reiterated that in case of a process there is no obligation on the part of the authority calling for applications to accept any of the applications or the most suitable one depending upon the nature of the process. If after receipt of the applications, the authority calling for applications finds that it is not possible to award the contract, like in the case in hand to allot the LPG distributorship for the advertised locations, it is open for the authority to re-call the process if it is found that it is not possible to allot the LPG distributorship in compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the Unified Guidelines. As has emerged from the discussion made above, the Unified Guidelines have prescribed that to be awarded the LPG distributorship, the applicant must have owned the land of specified status or a lease deed for a period of minimum 15 [fifteen] years as on the last date of submission of the application.
19. The contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that since the two petitioners had emerged successful in the draw of lots they can be awarded the LPG distributorships for the two advertised locations by revising the eligibility criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines is not acceptable. It is settled that the administrative authority is bound by the norms, standards and procedures laid down by it and disregard of the norms or standards would invalidate its action unless based on some valid principles which is neither irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory.
20. Any relaxation or any revision/modification in the standard of eligibility at the time of considering the applications would amount to a denial of opportunity to all those who considering themselves ineligible, did not apply in response to the Advertisement. For Page No.# 16/18 example, there could be other persons who are also in possession of same kinds of lands like the two petitioners herein but they after going through the criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines with regard the nature of land required to be offered for the LPG distributorships for the two advertised locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri, did not apply in response to the Advertisement and in the event the respondent authorities herein award the LPG distributorships for the two advertised locations by relaxing or revising the criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines, then the same would amount to denying those persons from the privilege of participation and the same would be in violation Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also settled that once the game has begun it is not open for the authority to change the rules of the game in the mid-stream. Any relaxation or any revision/modification in the original terms and conditions will amount to re-arrangement of the goalposts during an on-going process affecting the right of some or denying a privilege to some others, which is not permissible. The decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, reported in [1979] 3 SCC 489; and Central Coalfields Limited vs. SLL-SML [Joint Venture Consortium], [(2016) 8 SCC 622] can be referred in this regard.
21. The contention as regards previous allotments of a retail outlet for Petroleum and HSD and a Kerosene depot in lands of similar nature advanced on behalf of the petitioners is a submission regarding negative equality. Article 14 of the Constitution of India envisages only positive equality and it does not embrace any concept of negative equality. It is well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts to require the State or an agency/instrumentality of the State to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others. As such, such contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners is not sustainable in law.
22. From the materials on record, it has further emerged that the terms and conditions set forth in the Unified Guidelines the respondent authorities in the IOCL have realized that it is not possible to allot any LPG distributors at the two advertised locations as the District Page No.# 17/18 Administration and the authorities in the Forest Department have clarified that there would be no land at the two advertised locations which would meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines. In such view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the decision of the respondent authorities in the IOCL to drop the process of awarding LPG distributorships at the two advertised locations.
23. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case in hand, the Deputy Commissioner, Golaghat and the Forest Department have both clarified that the location at Chalang Pathar does not come under any revenue village and it falls under the areas of the Doyang Forest Village, a notified reserve forest. The said two authorities are best positioned to state about the status of the lands at the location at Chalang Pathar. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 7124/2018 has been pending for about more than three years and during this period, nobody has contended that a change has taken place with regard the status of the land at the location at Chalang Pathar and the land offered by the petitioner would now meet the eligibility criteria. The petitioner has not been able to show during this period that she has at her disposal any plot of land which meets the eligibility criteria of 'own' land as set forth in Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines. The question, thus, arises is whether there would have been any difference in the end result had the petitioner been granted the option to offer an alternative plot of land. Having regard to the stands taken by the district revenue administration and the forest department authorities with regard to the status of the lands at the location at Chalang Pathar and the inability on the part of the petitioner to show any material to claim that she had any 'own' land meeting the eligibility criteria as set forth in Clause 1[w] of the Unified Guidelines as on the last date of submission of application [25.06.2018], I am of the view that there would not have been any difference in the end result had the petitioner been granted the option to offer an alternative plot of land. In such view of the matter, the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel in this regard is found not merited.
24. It may be apposite to refer that when the two writ petitions were moved on 26.09.2018 and 05.10.2018 respectively, it was the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners also that since there is no private ownership lands at the two advertised Page No.# 18/18 locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri, which would meet the eligibility criteria set forth in the Unified Guidelines, the respondent IOCL authorities should re-visit the terms and conditions for allotment of the LPG distributorships at the two advertised locations. This Court is also of the view that the respondent IOCL authorities may have to re-visit the terms and conditions for allotment of the LPG distributorships for the two advertised locations if they wish to allot LPG distributorships at the two advertised location but not in the manner as contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, as such revision of eligibility criteria in the mid-stream, as has been noticed above, would amount to denial of the opportunity for all other prospective applicants having similar kind of lands from the benefit of privilege of participation and the same would amount to violation of the principles envisaged by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
25. In view of the discussions made above and for the reasons cited therein, both the writ petitions are found to be devoid of merits in the context of the prayers made therein. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim orders passed earlier stand recalled. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.
26. The respondent IOCL authorities while deciding to drop the two advertised locations at Chalang Pathar and Gomariguri from the purview of allotment of LPG distributorships, have also taken a decision to refund the deposit of Rs. 40,000/- each made by the two petitioners. It is, therefore, observed that in the event the petitioners approach the respondent IOCL authorities seeking refund of the deposits of Rs. 40,000/- each they had made earlier, the respondent IOCL authorities shall release the same forthwith.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant