Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors vs Md. Ziaur Rahaman on 13 March, 2019
Author: Soumen Sen
Bench: Soumen Sen
1
13.03.2019
S/L No.12
Court No.37
(gc)
CAN 1168 of 2018
With
MAT 1474 of 2017
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
Vs.
Md. Ziaur Rahaman.
Mr. M.S. Yadav,
..for the applicants/appellants.
Mr. Gautam Brahma,
Mr. Asok Kumar Datta,
Ms. Pampa Saha,
...for the respondent.
The appeal is directed against an order dated 15th June, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the letter dated 10th November, 2016 issued by the Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kolkata Area Office, was quashed and the respondents were directed to give effect to the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner on 27th February, 2015 in accordance with law as early as possible. The petitioner submitted an application for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak in response to the advertisement given in the "Anandabazar Patrika" by Indian Oil Corporation on January 21, 2014. The last date for submission of such application was February 24, 2014 as indicated in the said advertisement. The area for which the petitioner submitted application for LPG Distributorship in Serpur (Borali). The 2 contents of the application submitted by the petitioner indicate that the petitioner declared as owner of the land in Mouza- Garaijuli by virtue of two separate registered deeds dated February 19, 2014 and February 21, 2014. The field verification was done by the authority concerned in respect of the land declared by the petitioner for the purpose of construction of godown and showroom. On February 27, 2015 the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Chief Area Manager of Indian Oil Corporation Limited on the basis of terms and conditions incorporated in the said Letter of Intent. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that though the petitioner had completed all the formalities in compliance with the terms and conditions incorporated in the Letter of Intent, but the Indian Oil Corporation did not arrange for supply of LPG for distribution. The series of representations filed by the petitioner in this regard before the authority concerned remained unresponsed. Ultimately, on 10th November, 2016, the Chief Area Manager, Kolkata Area Office of Indian Oil Corporation Limited had withdrawn Letter of Intent by issuing a letter dated 10th November, 2016. The said letter was challenged in the writ petition.
3The Letter of Intent was withdrawn on two fold grounds:
firstly, the petitioner offered land for construction of godown at Garaijuli which is not the location advertised in the newspaper for construction of godown and secondly, the petitioner constructed the godown on plot no.701 and plot no.702, whereas the petitioner had shown plot no.697 (wrongly typed as plot no.607 in the letter dated November 10, 2016) and plot no.701 at the time of field verification by the agent of Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
It appears from the impugned judgment that it was contended before the learned Single Judge that there is no village or mouza by name Garaijuli under gram panchayat Pranganj in the district of South 24 Parganas and Garaijuli is the name of a para (hamlet) within Mouza - Malancha. The further submission of Mr. Brahma is that the petitioner has made all along representations before the authority concerned that he has been constructing the godown on plot nos.701 and 702, which were under the possession of the petitioner. The respondent did not appear to have disputed the claim of the writ petitioner that Garaijuli is part of Mouza-Malancha, but it was contended that the petitioner was not the owner of plot no.702 at the time of submission of the application for grant of distributorship of LPG. It was contended before the learned 4 Single Judge that the petitioner acquired the title in the land appertaining to plot no.702 on December 31, 2014. The learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition has taken into consideration that the certificate issued by the Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Bhangore-I, South 24-Parganas on November 27, 2015 shows that "Garaijuli" and "Malancha" are one and the same village, which implies that village Malancha includes Garaijuli. Accordingly, there could not be any justification to withdraw the Letter of Intent on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner for construction of godown was at Garaijuly, which is not the advertised location. Since Garaijuli is within mouza (village) Malancha which is advertised location for construction of godown, the declaration made by the petitioner for construction of godown at Garaijuli cannot be found fault with. The petitioner was justified in constructing godown in village Malancha which is advertised location.
We do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning for not accepting the submission of the appellants on this ground. Turning to the other aspect of the matter, it is an admitted position that the godown has been constructed by the petitioner on plot no.701 and plot no.702 of Mouza-Malancha. The description of the land was not disclosed by the petitioner in the 5 application for grant of distributorship of LPG. However, the copy of the deed dated February 20, 2014 submitted by the petitioner before the learned trial Court indicates that the said deed is unregistered document by which title cannot pass as per provision of Section 5 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1954. The registered deed dated February 20, 2014 indicates that the petitioner became the owner of 13 decimals of land appertaining to plot no.697 and 4 decimals of land appertaining to plot no.701 of Mouza-Malancha. However, it appears from another registered deed dated December 31, 2014 that the petitioner became the owner of 3 decimals of land of plot no.701 in Mouza-Malancha. It would, thus, appear from the copy of the deeds forwarded by the writ petitioner to the appellants that the petitioner became the owner of plot no.701 before closure of last date of acceptance of the application for LPG distributorship, whereas the petitioner became the owner of the land appertaining to plot no.702 after closure of last date of acceptance of the application for LPG distributorship. The learned Trial Judge proceeded on the basis that since the petitioner has already become the owner of land appertaining to plot nos.701 and 702 of Mouza-Malancha on which the godown has already been constructed, the respondents should proceed with the Letter of Intent already issued in favour of the 6 petitioner on February 27, 2015. Moreover, the petitioner has already invested fund for the purpose of construction of godown on plot no.701 and plot no.702, though there is a mistake committed by the writ petitioner in offering plot no.697 and plot no.701 initially for the purpose of construction of godown. The petitioner's application and the other relevant documents, at the time of primary screening firstly, were scrutinized by the authority along with the documents processed by the other candidates before draw of lots according to the Rajjiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme (hereinafter referred to as the "said scheme"). The petitioner was primarily found eligible and qualified for the LPG dealership under the said scheme along with 19 other candidates. At the time of scrutiny for the first time, the primary merit of the petitioner, the financial capacity etc. along with the other candidates were duly assessed/considered by the authority, in accordance with the said scheme before the draw of lots. Only 7 candidates were selected for the draw of lots out of 20 candidates where the petitioner was one of the successful qualified candidates for the draw of lots. In the draw of lots the petitioner became successful. One of the eligibility criteria is that the petitioner should hold a land measuring 21 meter X 26 meter for keeping 5000kg of LPG in Cylinders and what is important is that the 7 petitioner should possess land. The mistaken identity of the land would not disqualify the petitioner nor it would amount to any misrepresentation. The fact remains that the petitioner in fact had two plots of land which would qualify the land measurement criteria even if plot no.702 is not considered at the relevant point of time. The fact is that the petitioner also became the owner of another plot of land does not make the petitioner disqualify as by that time he already had two plots of land which fulfils the land measurement criteria. What is important is that the land should be free hold and the petitioner would be in a position to construct the godown for the purpose of LPG distributorship. Moreover, the petitioner has already constructed the godown and the fact remains that till date no other distributor has been appointed by the Oil Company.
On such considerations, we do find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal being MAT 1474 of 2017 and the stay application being CAN 1168 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.) 8 (Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.)