Appellant’s candidature for LPG distributorships was cancelled by Respondent on the ground that the land offered by him for the showroom, was beyond the advertised location. Appellant challenged the Cancellation Letter by filing a writ petition before the High Court. Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed HPCL to proceed with the evaluation of the appellant’s candidature and decide the same within four weeks. HPCL challenged the order of Ld. Single Judge by filing writ appeal, which was allowed by way of the impugned order by the Division Bench of High Court. Following questions were framed by this Court:
(i)
Whether the land offered by the appellant for the showroom is covered by the extent of “Location” stipulated in the Advertisement and is compliant with the Unified Guidelines?
(ii)
Whether the Division Bench was justified in its interference with the order under challenge before it?
LPG Distributorship – Meaning of the term “Location” in the Advertisement issued by the Respondent:
Held: There is no reference to any Gram/Village Panchayat in Part 2 of the Advertisement although such reference is available under Part 1 because HPCL did not intend the distributor to cater to any rural area but a ‘Rurban’ area, which has to be given the meaning attributed to ‘Rurban Vitrak’ in the Unified Guidelines, which comprises of both rural and urban – If indeed an LPG distributor were intended to be appointed in village Haripal, the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’ would have been shown as ‘Rural’ and included in Part 1 and not Part 2 of the Advertisement – Since there was no specific column for “Gram Panchayat” in Part 2 of the Advertisement, which was present in Part 1, and the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’ was not ‘Rural’, complemented by the lack of any detail – Apart from Haripal in the “Location” without any detailed particulars of the place, it is implied that the location of the concerned showroom was required to be in Haripal block and any showroom on land located in Haripal block would fall within the requirements of the Advertisement. [Paras 19 to 24] LPG Distributorship – Candidature under Advertisement – Scope of interference by the Court:
Held: It is not for the Court to adjudge the nature of the Advertisement or the intention of those who were responsible for drawing it up, but whether the appellant’s candidature fell within the scope of the ‘Location’ as indicated in the Advertisement.[Para 23] Advertisement – Binding on issuing Authority:
Held: Law is well settled that when an advertisement is made inviting applications from the general public for appointment to a post or for admission to any course or appointment of the present nature, the advertisement constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation – It cannot act contrary to it. [Para 24]
LPG Distributorship – Cancellation of Candidature of an applicant – Challenge to – Defence – Reference to pleadings: Held: The specific words ‘mouza’ and ‘village’ are not mentioned in the Advertisement and they cannot be defined by reference to the definitions of the same in the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 – An order of cancellation of the candidature of an applicant, which is the subject matter of challenge in a court of law, has to be defended with reference to the Advertisement and the pleadings and not with reference to what was in contemplation of the authority issuing the Advertisement – A court cannot be swayed by the version of a party, which is not its pleaded case, and it should confine its decision to the points of assail/defence raised in the pleadings. [Para 25] LPG Distributorship – Clause/Qualification in the Advertisement cannot be modified/rewritten by the Court:
Held: It is not open to a writ court, much less an appeal court, to direct the modification of any clause/qualification in the Advertisement to suit the interest of any particular candidate or the issuing authority – Any such direction would amount to re-writing the clause/qualification mentioned in the Advertisement, which would be plainly impermissible. [Para 26]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.