LPG distributorship eligibility requires genuine ordinary residence, not residence established shortly before application.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) advertised an LPG distributorship for Village Varahi on 9 October 2010, subject to the applicant being a resident of the concerned village.

The appellant, Nareshbhai Shamalbhai Bhambhi, was selected through a draw of lots. His candidature was challenged by the original writ petitioner on the ground that he was not an ordinary or local resident of Varahi.

The material showed that the appellant had earlier been recorded as a resident of Idar; changes in the electoral roll showing Varahi residence were published on 15 July 2010, while his APL card and residence certificate were issued thereafter.

The residence certificate issued by the Mamlatdar on 2 November 2010 was specifically for the purpose of obtaining the LPG distributorship.

HPCL initially rejected the representation challenging the appellant’s candidature on 6 September 2016.

The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 13 November 2017, set aside that rejection and directed fresh consideration, including consideration of the writ petitioner’s candidature if the appellant was found ineligible.

Whether the appellant satisfied the requirement of being a resident or local person of Village Varahi for the purpose of the LPG distributorship, merely because he possessed documents showing residence as on or around the date of application.

Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside HPCL’s rejection of the representation and directing fresh consideration of the appellant’s eligibility.

Whether, upon the appellant’s candidature being found ineligible, the writ petitioner was entitled to consideration for allotment of the distributorship contrary to the prescribed selection procedure.

The Court applied the eligibility and selection conditions contained in HPCL’s brochure for the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme.

The residence requirement was interpreted in light of the policy objective of selecting a genuine local person who could obtain local employment and serve the needs of the concerned area.

Documentary residence proof must therefore establish genuine and ordinary local residence, rather than merely a recently altered entry or certificate obtained for the distributorship process.

The selection procedure required selection by draw of lots from eligible and qualified candidates, and, where the selected candidate’s candidature was rejected, a fresh draw from the remaining qualified candidates under Clause 12.10 of the brochure.

The Court also considered the appellant’s reliance on Nabin Kumar Sahu v. Indian Oil Corporation, 2018 (14) SCC 478, concerning the evidentiary value of a residence certificate, but held on the facts that the certificate issued specifically for the distributorship, after the advertisement, could not establish ordinary residence.

The Court found that the appellant had been a permanent resident of Idar until 12 May 2010 and that his electoral-roll correction showing Varahi residence was published only on 15 July 2010, shortly before the advertisement.

His APL card and Mamlatdar’s certificate were subsequent documents, and the latter was issued in the prescribed distributorship form and expressly for the purpose of obtaining the LPG agency.

These circumstances did not demonstrate that he was an established local or ordinary resident of Varahi when assessed against the policy’s underlying purpose.

The Court therefore upheld the Single Judge’s conclusion that HPCL had failed to properly scrutinize the residence documents and had unjustifiably rejected the challenge to the appellant’s candidature.

However, the Court clarified that the writ petitioner’s candidature could be considered only in accordance with HPCL’s policy and the prescribed selection procedure, and not automatically merely because the appellant was found ineligible.

The learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside HPCL’s rejection order and directing fresh consideration.

The matter was to be decided by HPCL strictly in accordance with the observations of the Division Bench and the Single Judge, with the writ petitioner’s candidature to be considered only as permitted by the applicable policy.

No fresh hearing was required for the appellant, although the original writ petitioner could be heard regarding his own candidature.

HPCL was directed to take a decision preferably within eight weeks of receiving the judgment.

The request to stay the judgment was rejected, and the pending civil applications were disposed of; the Rule was discharged.