Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Sipra Khan vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 20 December, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1
20.12.2018
Item no. 07
Suman
Ct. 4 WP 21118 (W) of 2018
Smt. Sipra Khan
Vs.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. Goutam Dey
Ms. Rituparna Sengupta
Mr. Anupam Das
... ... For the petitioner
Mr. D. K. Kundu
Mr. A. Basu
... ...For the HPL
Mr. Malay Basu, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Pachhal
... ...For respondent no. 5
This writ petition was moved on 12th October, 2018 when on record of submissions heard, limited interim order was made. Relevant text from said order dated 12th October, 2018 is reproduced below:
"Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was declared to be first in result dated 22nd November, 2003 published by Dealership Selection Committee of the Oil Company. On 5th October, 2018 she came to know that earlier on 17th April, 2018, Letter of Intent (LOI) had 2 been issued by the Oil Company to private respondent no. 5 and thereafter steps being taken to allot the dealership to him. He submits, this writ petition is of substance and there be interim protection, at least up to reopening after ensuing vacation, in the matter of awarding the dealership. Mr. Kundu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Oil Company and submits, this writ petition is not maintainable. He submits further, there was a writ petition filed by second empanelled candidate against eligibility of petitioner, as having had tendered forged income tax documents. That writ petition was allowed against which petitioner preferred appeal. He submits, dealership has not yet been allotted but respondent no. 5 has already made construction and should be awarded the dealership. Mr. Haque, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent no. 5 and submits, he is entitled to be awarded dealership, as petitioner's candidature has been rejected.
The Oil Company will not award the dealership till 30th November, 2018 or till further orders, whichever is earlier."
Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was first empanelled candidate for award of LPG dealership /distributorship at Andul, Howrah. The Oil Company thereafter wrongfully rejected her candidature. His client had challenged such rejection by writ petition being W.P.12060 (W) of 2007 in which interim order dated 26th July, 2007 had been made restraining 3 the Oil Company from making fresh advertisement for appointment of LPG retail outlet dealership at Andul, Howrah. This order was limited in time but extended from time to time till 20th February, 2014 when the writ petition stood dismissed for default. Said writ petition on being restored again stood dismissed for default on 11th April, 2015. Mr. Bhattacharya submits, restoration application has been filed which is yet to be moved. He submits, his client is likely to obtain condonation of delay and have that writ petition restored for challenge in it to be heard. That it is a good challenge is borne out by his client having had obtained limited interim order.
Mr. Kundu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the Oil Company and submits, from 11th April, 2015 his client waited to see whether petitioner was serious regarding her earlier writ petition, for restoring the same. After three years impugned letter was issued proposing to appoint respondent no.5 as regular LPG distributorship at Andul. The distribution of LPG is affected by long pendency of petitioner's earlier writ petition which stood dismissed and has not been restored till date.
Mr. Basu, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.5 and files affidavit-in-opposition. He refers to full disclosure of impugned letter as made in his client's affidavit, to paragraph 13 therein. Said paragraph is reproduced below:- 4
"13. Please note that WP 68 (W) of 2004 & WP 607(W) of 2004 titled Smt. Tulirekha Paul vs HPCL AND MAT/CAN No.746/4523 of 2005-06, WP 12060 (W) of 2007 & WP 17280 (W) of 2010 titled Smt. Sipra Khan vs HPCL & Ors. all pending before Calcutta High Court, West Bengal wherein the petitioners have challenged rejection of their candidature w.r.t. location Andul wherein HPCL has also been impleaded as party. In view of said Writ Petitions, please note that issuance of this Letter of Intent (LOI) and commissioning of the distributorship for location Andul is conditional in nature which shall remain subject to the final judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the said matter or resultant appeal, if any, arising thereto outcome of which shall be binding on all the parties including your good self. Thus, this conditional LOI is issued subject to final outcome of the said Writ Petitions and resultant appeal, if any, outcome of which shall be binding on you. In case, the outcome of any one of the above said cases goes against HPCL, then this Letter of Intent shall be withdrawn and distributorship awarded pursuant to this conditional Letter of Intent shall be terminated without any notice and in such eventuality you shall not have any claim, whatsoever in nature, with respect to Regular 5 distributorship at Andul. Further, in case, this Letter of Intent is withdrawn and distributorship is terminated in view of outcome of the said cases, you shall not have any financial/money claim, whatsoever in nature, against HPCL."
He submits, petitioner did not disclose fully this letter in impugning same in this writ petition. There should be no interference by vacating interim order granted.
Petitioner must find her remedy, if any available on her writ petition having stood dismissed for this long time. That a writ petition in year 2007 had been filed which stood dismissed for default second time on 11th April, 2015 is not conduct that inspires exercise of discretion in favour of petitioner. The Oil Company has put terms on respondent no.5 as appears from paragraph 13 in impugned letter quoted above. Petitioner's conduct in not fully disclosing impugned letter is also deprecated.
Writ petition is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)