Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a challenge to the grant of LPG distributorship at Jamalpur, District Burdwan, under the GP Category. An advertisement was issued on 09.09.2012, and applications were invited. The appellant, Mrinmoy Maity, and the respondent No.1, Chhanda Koley, were among the eligible candidates. A draw of lots was held on 11.05.2013, and the appellant was selected. A letter of intent was issued on 24.02.2014, and approval was granted by BPCL on 03.06.2014. After four years, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint alleging that the land offered by the appellant was Barga land. The appellant offered alternate land, which was accepted by BPCL. The respondent No.1, being an unsuccessful candidate, filed a writ petition on 10.04.2017 challenging the approval. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of locus standi, as the petitioner had participated in the selection process. The Division Bench reversed this decision, setting aside the allotment on the grounds that the land offered was in contravention of guidelines and that subsequent amendments could not be applied retrospectively. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. The Court emphasized that delay defeats equity and that the writ petitioner had slept over her rights for four years, allowing the appellant to construct godown and showroom. The Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the Single Judge's dismissal, but did not rule on the merits of the guidelines violation.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The writ petition was filed after four years of the selection process and after the appellant had already been granted approval and had constructed godown and showroom on alternate land. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches alone, as the writ petitioner slept over her rights and allowed the cause of action to drift away. (Paras 9-12) B) Administrative Law - Selection Process - Change of Rules - Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors - Clause 7.1(vi) and (vii) - The Division Bench had set aside the allotment on the ground that the appellant's land was in contravention of guidelines and that subsequent amendment could not be applied retrospectively. However, the Supreme Court did not decide this issue as the writ petition was dismissed on delay and laches. (Paras 6, 9) C) Constitutional Law - Locus Standi - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner had no locus standi as she participated in the selection process. The Supreme Court did not rule on this but noted that the Division Bench had reversed it. (Paras 6, 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ court was justified in entertaining the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 challenging the approval dated 03.06.2014 granted in favour of the appellant for starting LPG distributorship at Jamalpur, District Burdwan?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order of Division Bench set aside. Writ petition dismissed on ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay defeats equity
- Laches in writ jurisdiction
- Discretionary power under Article 226
- Change of rules after commencement of selection process
- Retrospective application of guidelines
