Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s challenge against the allotment of the L.P.G. distributorship. The court upheld the lower court’s rulings and found no evidence of violations or procedural lapses by the 4th respondent. It stated, “We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgments impugned and reject the contentions raised.”
This decision reaffirms that the respondent’s actions in offering alternate land were within the guidelines.
Facts
- The Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) advertised L.P.G. distributorship allotments in 2013 under various categories.
- The 4th respondent was declared the successful applicant for a distributorship in Balachaur, through a draw of lots conducted in 2014.
- The appellant challenged the allotment, claiming that the respondent had offered land already offered by another applicant, which violated the guidelines.
- After the lessor submitted contradictory affidavits regarding ownership and lease of the land, the 4th respondent offered an alternate parcel of land to resolve the issue.
The appellant argued that the alternate land was offered in violation of guidelines requiring the land to be owned or leased at the time of application.
Issues
- Did the 4th respondent’s initial land offer violate the guidelines, as it was allegedly also offered by another applicant?
- Was the 4th respondent’s offer of alternate land permissible under the guidelines?
- Did the lessor’s contradictory affidavits affect the validity of the 4th respondent’s application?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The appellant contended:
- The guidelines required that land must be owned or leased by the applicant as of the date of application. The 4th respondent’s alternate land offer violated this rule.
- The lessor’s affidavit confirmed that the same land was offered to two applicants, which should have disqualified the 4th respondent.
- The subsequent offer of alternate land substantiated the respondent’s ineligibility under the original application.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent (4th respondent) and the Corporation countered:
- The land initially offered by the 4th respondent and the other applicant were distinct parcels, although owned by the same lessor.
- Alternate land was offered only because the lessor submitted contradictory affidavits, creating confusion.
- The alternate land met all requirements under the guidelines, which allow flexibility in allotting alternate land to resolve disputes.
The Corporation asserted that inquiries confirmed the 4th respondent’s compliance with all requirements, and the distributorship had been operational without any issues for years.
Analysis of the Law
The court referred to specific provisions in the guidelines, including:
- Clause 8.5: This specifies non-rectifiable defects in applications but does not include the absence of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for sole ownership properties.
- Appendix P: This clarifies that notarized affidavits for joint ownership properties must be submitted, but can be obtained later during field verification if not submitted with the application.
The court found that the 4th respondent’s alternate land offer complied with the flexibility provided in the guidelines. The land met the advertisement’s requirements, and the lessor’s contradictory affidavits did not invalidate the application.
Precedent Analysis
The court cited Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley (2024), which allowed for alternate land to be offered if the original land was found unsuitable. The precedent supported the court’s view that the 4th respondent’s alternate land offer was permissible under the guidelines.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized:
- The lessor’s contradictory affidavits were not credible. It noted that the original affidavit confirmed sole ownership of the leased land, while the subsequent affidavit was inconsistent and unreliable.
- The alternate land was offered only due to the lessor’s shifting stance and was permissible under the guidelines.
- The Corporation verified the distinctiveness of the parcels leased to the 4th respondent and another applicant. These were not overlapping but were separate parcels within a larger extent owned by the lessor.
- The flexibility in the guidelines allows alternate land to be offered during the allotment process if required.
The court stated:
“We find absolutely no reason to place any credence on the affidavit of the lessor dated 11.01.2018, which was quite contrary to the earlier affidavit of the lessor himself.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that:
- The 4th respondent’s alternate land offer was valid under the guidelines.
- The lessor’s contradictory affidavits did not affect the respondent’s compliance with the rules.
- The distributorship was lawfully operational and did not warrant interference.
The court directed that each party bear their own costs.
Implications
The judgment clarifies that the guidelines for L.P.G. distributorship allotments provide flexibility for addressing disputes related to land ownership or lease. It establishes that alternate land can be offered if circumstances necessitate, provided the requirements are met. This decision is likely to guide future cases involving disputes over land compliance in similar allotment processes.