Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Ors. vs Swapnil Singh on 8 September, 2015
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, S.A. Bobde
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6928-6929 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.15953-15954/2014)
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.& ORS. APPELLANT(s)
VERSUS
SWAPNIL SINGH RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The challenge in this appeal is to the the judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2014 passed by the Calcutta High Court in A.S.T. No.158 of 2013 with A.S.T.A. No.93 of 2013.
The appellants invited applications for selection of regular LPG distributors by a brochure issued in April, 2011. The eligibility criterion for individual applicants is mentioned in paragraph 7(vi) of the brochure. This requires that the applicant should own a plot of land of adequate size (within 15 km from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State) for construction of godown for storage of 8000 kg of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Sanjay Kumar Date: 2015.09.10 17:00:20 IST godown as on the date of application. Towards of the end Reason: of clause (vii) of paragraph 7, there is an item which says “Reference vi & vii above” and this deals with 2 ownership and it reads as follows:
“'Own' means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 yrs in the name of applicant/family member as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria.” Pursuant to the brochure and the advertisement issued by the appellants, the respondent submitted an application on 13th September, 2011. In the application, against column No.9, it was mentioned that the date of registration of sale deed/gift deed/lease deed/deed of mutation, as far as the respondent is concerned, is 13 th September, 2011.
The application was processed by the appellants and on 30th March, 2012 a draw of lots was held in which the respondent was found to be successful. Thereafter, on 19th February, 2013, the appellants conducted a field verification to verify whether the respondent actually was the owner of the land or a lease holder as required by the brochure. During the process of field verification, it came to the knowledge of the appellants that in fact the respondent had entered into the lease agreement on 20th December, 2012 for a period of 15 years and that lease agreement was registered only on 21st December, 2012. In other words, the field verification disclosed that the respondent did not have a registered lease deed as on the date of application, i.e., 13 th 3 September, 2011. In view of this, the appellants cancelled the allotment of the LPG distributorship to the respondent by a letter dated 11th June, 2013.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No.19273 (W) of 2013 before the Calcutta High Court challenging the letter of cancellation dated 11th June, 2013. The writ petition was heard by a learned Single Judge and by an order dated 24th July, 2013, the learned Single Judge found that the respondent was ineligible at the time when the application was made and, therefore, the cancellation of the LPG distributorship by the appellants was in order.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and the Division Bench allowed the appeal, which has resulted in the present appeal before us.
We have gone through the records of the case along with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties and we find that the brochure read with the application form is absolutely clear in the sense that the applicant must be the owner of the specified area of land or must have a registered lease deed of the specified area of land on the date of application. The admitted position (which is also clear from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in this Court) is that on 13 th September, 4 2011 when the application for allotment was made, the respondent was neither the owner of any land nor had any registered sale deed/lease deed in her name. In fact, the lease deed came into existence only on 20 th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21st December, 2012. Clearly, on the date of the application, the respondent was not eligible in terms of the brochure and the application form.
The Calcutta High court has proceeded on the basis of a notarized lease agreement which appears to have been produced by the respondent before the High court. A photocopy of the notarized lease agreement has been shown to us and that document is dated 13th September, 2011. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon this document to contend that the respondent was eligible as on 13th September, 2011 in terms of the notarized lease agreement.
We are unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the respondent. The brochure and the application form clearly require the applicant to have a registered lease deed in her name. What is shown to us is a notarized document and admittedly this document, even though it may have been in existence, was formalised into a lease agreement only on 20th December, 2012 and that was registered on 21st December, 2012. The notarized 5 document, therefore, does not advance the case of the respondent any further. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondent was not eligible on the date of application, i.e., 13th September, 2011. Under the circumstances, we allow these appeals and set aside the order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. No costs.
.............................J. (MADAN B. LOKUR) .............................J. (S.A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 08, 2015 6 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.9 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).15953-15954/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03/04/2014 in AST No. 158/2013 with ASTA No. 93/2013 passed by the High Court of Calcutta) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SWAPNIL SINGH Respondent(s) Date : 08/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Sanand Ramakrishnan, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. R.B. Singhal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Sujata Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (JASWINDER KAUR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)