Gujarat High Court
Indian Oil Corporation & vs Ranjitsinh Jitusinh Zala on 23 November, 2015
Bench: Jayant Patel, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 963 of 2015
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17577 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION & 1....Appellant(s)
Versus
RANJITSINH JITUSINH ZALA....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AKSHAY A VAKIL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
2
MR PRABHAV A MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.
JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 23/11/2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JAYANT PATEL) Page 1 of 8 HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in SCA No.17577/15, whereby the learned Single Judge for the reasons recorded in the order, had allowed the petition.
2. The short facts of the case appears to be that on 30.09.2013, the advertisement was given by the appellants inviting applications to award LPG distributorship in Dehgam (Zak), Dist. Gandhinagar in open category. On 28.10.2013, a lease deed was executed in favour of the original petitioner and presented before the Sub Registrar. The last date of submission of the application was 31.10.2013. As per the original petitioner, since he was fulfilling the eligibility criteria for the LPG distributorship in open category, he had made application. On 19.06.2014, the original petitioner was informed that he has been selected for LPG distributorship pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.09.2013 and he was called upon to deposit the requisite amount. On 26.08.2014, a letter was addressed by the original petitioner, but ultimately, on 14.11.2014, the original petitioner was communicated by the appellant that as the lease deed was not registered on 31.10.2013, but was only registered on 11.04.2014, his candidature is rejected and the amount of Rs.25,000/ deposited is already forfeited. Under the circumstances, the original petitioner had approached to this Court by preferring the petition. The learned Page 2 of 8 HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT Single Judge, after hearing both the sides, found that in view of section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") once the document was registered, it would take effect from the date as if no registration was required and the learned Single Judge also considered the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar reported at (1991) 1 SCC 715 and ultimately, found that the petition deserves to be allowed and the learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order. Under the circumstances, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before the Division Bench of this Court.
3. We have heard Mr. Akshay Vakil, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and and Mr. Prabhav Mehta for the respondent.
4. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the certificate for registration of the lease deed was on 11.04.2014 and not prior to 31.10.2013, which was the cut off date. He submitted that as per the guidelines issued for the purpose of allotment of LPG distributorship, the person should either own the land in question or there should be a registered lease deed in his favour at least for a period of 15 years. In his submission, as on 28.10.2013 or in any case, prior to 31.10.2013, it could not be said that the registered lease deed was in existence in favour of the original Page 3 of 8 HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT petitioner, the appellant was justified in denying the candidature to the original petitioner as he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. It was submitted that based on the guidelines, the applications were required to be considered of all eligible persons. If the effect is given as per section 47 of the Act to a document registered at the later stage, though presented earlier, such would result into making departure from the guidelines which is not permissible, and hence, the decision of the learned Single Judge calls for interference.
5. We may record that on the following factual aspects, there is no dispute :
1) The advertisement was given for inviting applications for LPG distributorship.
2) The original petitioner had applied for LPG distributorship.
3) The applications were for open category and the original petitioner fulfilled the said criteria of open category.
4) The original petitioner submitted application prior to 31.10.2013.
5) The document of lease deed in favour of the original petitioner was presented for Page 4 of 8 HC-NIC Page 4 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT registration on 28.10.2013. The number was also given, but as on the first page, one thumb impression was not applied, the registration was kept pending.
6) On 11.04.2014, the document is duly registered vide No.701.
7) The application of the original petitioner was processed and vide communication dated 19.06.2014, the original petitioner was informed about his selection as per the draw for the LPG distributorship. He was also called upon to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/.
8) The original petitioner deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/.
9) Thereafter, ultimately, vide decision dated 14.11.2014, the candidature is denied of the original petitioner and the amount of Rs.25,000/ is forfeited.
6. If the date for consideration of the application is considered as that of 18.06.2014, i.e., the date on which the draw had taken place, the fact remains that not only the document was already registered on 11.04.2014, but its legal effect had started from 28.10.2013.
7. Section 47 of the Act reads as under Page 5 of 8 HC-NIC Page 5 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT "Section 47. Time from which registered document operates A registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof had been required or made, and not from the time of its registration."
8. As per section 47 of the Act, once a document is registered, it will operate from the time as if registration was not required and not from the time of its registration. The effect of section 47 of the Act is clear in its own language and such effect cannot be diluted on the ground as sought to be canvassed that it would become effective from the date of registration. At this stage, the reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Hamda Ammal (supra). If the legal effect or effect in law of the document dated 28.10.2013 of the lease deed is considered, such would be 28.10.2013, which in any case would be prior to 31.10.2013, which was the cutoff date for submission of the application. Hence, it cannot be said that the original petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for LPG distributorship on 31.10.2013.
9. The attempt to contend that the guidelines were binding to the appellant and no departure is to be made to the guidelines even if considered for the sake of examination, would be of no help to the appellant for twofold reasons; one is that the guidelines even if considered as it is, does Page 6 of 8 HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT not debar the effect of registered document under section 47 of the Act and the second is that it is not even the case of the appellant that while processing the application in respect of the advertisement in question, there were other candidates similarly situated who were denied eligibility since the document was registered or the order for registration was passed at the later stage. Under these circumstances, we find that the guidelines projected are no valid defence available to the appellant. In any case, no guidelines can be read to dilute or nullify the effect of section 47 of the Act, which is a law made by the Parliament, in any case would be binding to the appellants, which is an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
10. In view of the above read with the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in holding that the impugned decision deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Single Judge in our considered view, has rightly allowed the petition. Hence, no interference is called for to the decision of the learned Single Judge.
11. Hence, the appeal is meritless and therefore, dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Page 7 of 8 HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015 C/LPA/963/2015 JUDGMENT (JAYANT PATEL, ACJ.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) bjoy Page 8 of 8 HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Fri Nov 27 00:03:56 IST 2015