Land Disqualification – No Violation Found: The Court found no evidence that the 4th Respondent’s land offer violated guidelines – Field verification confirmed separate parcels of land (Para 7). The affidavits of the lessor were contradictory – The Court refused to rely on the later affidavit alleging a double lease (Para 8). The Corporation lawfully verified ownership – No joint ownership or lease issue existed (Para 9).

Alternative Land – Permissibility & Judicial Precedent: The Court referred to Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley & Ors. (2024) – Guidelines permitted alternative land if the original was disputed (Para 12). The modified selection process allowed greater flexibility – The Corporation acted within its powers (Para 10). The acceptance of alternative land did not render the original allotment invalid – The contention was held fallacious (Para 11).

Judicial Review – Scope of Interference: The Court reiterated limited judicial review in policy-based selections – No mala fide or arbitrariness was found (Para 13). The High Court had correctly rejected the challenge – The appeal lacked merit (Para 14).

Held:

The 4th Respondent did not suffer from disqualification. The alternative land offer was valid under revised guidelines. The High Court’s judgment was upheld – The Civil Appeal stood dismissed. Appeal Dismissed – No Costs Awarded. (Paras 13-14)

Acts & Sections:

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Special Leave to Appeal – Scope of Judicial Review.
• Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Not directly applicable, but referenced in arguments regarding distributorship rights.
• Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Section 10 – Validity of Lease Agreement in Context of LPG Distributorship.

Subjects:

LPG Distributorship – Lease Agreement – Shifting Stance of Lessor – Field Verification – Alternative Land – Guidelines for Allotment – Non-Rectifiable Defects – Special Leave Petition – No Objection Certificate – Judicial Review – Affidavit Contradictions.

Facts:

Nature of Litigation:

The appellant, Jagwant Kaur, challenged the allotment of an LPG distributorship at Balachaur, Punjab, alleging that the successful applicant (4th respondent) was disqualified as per the guidelines due to the same land being offered by another applicant.

Relief Sought:

The appellant sought cancellation of the allotment, arguing that the 4th respondent had initially relied on disputed land and later substituted it with another property in violation of the guidelines.

Reason for Filing the Case:

The appellant contended that:
a) The 4th respondent's initial land was also offered by another applicant, leading to disqualification.
b) The subsequent offer of an alternative land was impermissible as per the guidelines.

Previous Decisions:

• The High Court dismissed the writ petition and the subsequent appeal, upholding the selection process.
• The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal.

Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether the 4th respondent was disqualified due to the same land being offered by another applicant?
2. Whether the offer of an alternate land after the application process was permissible under the guidelines?

Arguments & Submissions:

Appellant (Jagwant Kaur):

• The guidelines mandated possession of the land (ownership/lease) on the application date.
• The 4th respondent initially relied on land that was already leased to another applicant.
• The Corporation’s acceptance of alternative land post-application was unlawful.

4th Respondent:

• The land in question comprised different parcels despite belonging to the same lessor.
• The shifting stance of the lessor led to the need for an alternative land offer, which was permissible as per modified guidelines.
• The distributorship had been operational for years without issues.

Respondent (Indian Oil Corporation):

• Field verification confirmed that the two applicants had leased distinct parcels of land.
• The guidelines allowed an alternative land offer in cases of dispute.
• There was no procedural violation in the allotment process.