Offering the same showroom land by multiple applicants mandates rejection under distributorship guidelines.

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. issued an advertisement dated 22 February 2019 for appointment of LPG distributors.

Shri Sasi Biswas applied for distributorship at Jagaddal, Bhatpara Municipality, North 24 Parganas, under the “Sheheri Vitrak” category, and offered a particular plot of land for construction of the showroom.

During field verification of credentials, the Corporation found that the same plot had also been offered by the private respondent.

On that basis, the petitioner’s candidature was treated as ineligible under Clause 8(n) of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship.

Pursuant to directions in an earlier writ proceeding, the authorities passed a reasoned order recording that the schedules of property offered by both applicants were identical.

The applications of both candidates were rejected under Clause 8(n), which prohibits the same property from being offered by more than one applicant for the same location.

The learned Single Judge, however, directed the authorities to consider whether the land was sufficiently large to accommodate two showrooms.

The Corporation challenged that direction in the intra-court appeal.

During the pendency of the appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed and the Corporation proceeded to appoint a distributor for the concerned location.

The Division Bench also recorded that the writ petitioner’s advocate had no instructions from his client at the final hearing.

Whether Clause 8(n) of the Unified Guidelines barred consideration of the same piece of land when it had been offered by more than one applicant for the same advertised location?

Whether the authorities were required or permitted to determine whether the common plot was sufficiently large to accommodate two LPG showrooms, notwithstanding Clause 8(n)?

Whether the direction of the learned Single Judge to reconsider the land offered by the writ petitioner was legally sustainable?

The Court applied Clause 8(n) of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorship, which provides that the same piece of land for a showroom cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular advertised location; if such duplication is discovered, all such applications must be rejected, or an already completed selection must be cancelled.

The Court held that the clause is mandatory, uniformly applicable, and leaves no discretion to the authorities to investigate whether the common land is large enough to accommodate separate showrooms.

No statute or judicial precedent was relied upon in the judgment.

The identity of the property schedules offered by the writ petitioner and the private respondent was undisputed.

Since both applicants had offered the same land for the same location, the express prohibition in Clause 8(n) was attracted.

The Guidelines did not authorise the Corporation to undertake a further factual inquiry into the size or capacity of the land, and the possibility that the land could accommodate two showrooms was therefore irrelevant.

The learned Single Judge’s direction requiring such an inquiry effectively mandated an exercise contrary to Clause 8(n) and was consequently unsustainable.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, and imposed no order as to costs.