Sanchayita Lahkar

The Calcutta High Court Single Bench of Justice Subhendu Samanta quashed the selection of a candidate by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for an LPG distributorship at Atpukur, Minakha, North 24 Parganas, citing non-compliance with guidelines set forth in the brochure for distributorship selection. The court directed the authorities to reinitiate the selection process in conformity with the prescribed norms.

Three writ petitions were filed contesting the selection of respondent No. 9, Indumoti Rauth, for an LPG distributorship in Atpukur, a location reserved for Scheduled Caste women, advertised by IOCL along with other Oil Marketing Companies on August 31, 2017. The petitioners, Antara Mondal (WPA 8125/2020), Namita Mondal (WPA 9344/2021), and Gargi Mondal (WPA 2124/2022), alleged that the selection process was irregular as the respondent initially offered land outside the advertised location.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Reasonable Accommodation Upheld As Fundamental Right | AIIMS Directed To Admit Candiate With Disability Without NEET Reappearance

Respondent No. 9 was selected through a draw of lots. However, at the stage of field verification of credentials (FVC), it was discovered that the land she offered was located in Mouza Uchildaha rather than Mouza Atpukur. Consequently, IOCL initially rejected her candidature through a letter dated September 6, 2018.

She then filed WPA 18857/2018 challenging the rejection. During its pendency, IOCL issued a letter on October 30, 2018, allowing her to offer an alternate land. The writ court subsequently directed IOCL to consider the alternate land documents and take a final decision.

Following this, respondent No. 9 submitted new land documents on November 12, 2018, claiming that the mouza was incorrectly stated in her application. IOCL, after verification, issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) on February 22, 2019.

Later, she offered further alternate land — Plot No. 1548 at Mouza Atpukur for showroom and Plot No. 518 at Mouza Kushangra for godown. Permissions were obtained from land and fire safety authorities, and she was eventually granted a final letter of appointment.

The petitioners contended that:

• The initial land was outside the advertised location.

• IOCL allowed submission of alternate land documents without court direction.

• The offered land was unsuitable, submerged, and inaccessible.

• The land belonged to her father-in-law, not eligible under the brochure.

• The final land offered for the godown was outside the advertised location and leased after the application deadline.

IOCL countered that:

• The error in mouza and ownership relation was clerical.

• The brochure permitted offering of alternate land at the FVC stage.

• The definition of "own" land includes property owned by in-laws.

• Land outside advertised location within 15 km was permitted under the brochure.

The court dissected the issues raised, addressing them under three heads.

1. Eligibility of Land Owned by Father-in-Law:

The court cited the definition of "own" from the brochure, which includes land owned by "parents of the applicant or the spouse". The court stated, "Thus under the above observation I find no unreasonableness by the respondent authority to allow respondent No. 9 to offer the land of her father-in-law." This issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

2. Legality of Offering Alternate Land During FVC:

The court noted that IOCL permitted the alternate land offer during the pendency of the earlier writ without any court direction and reversed its own rejection without clear justification. The judgment stated, "The action of the authority is not by dint of the order of the court and decision of the authority is surprisingly reverse to their earlier stand."

The court further recorded, "The initial land offered by the private respondent 9 as well as the alternative land was a low land (as admitted by the respondent No. 9 in her subsequent letter) full of water and it cannot be used for the purpose of construction of LPG show-room or godown." It held that IOCL failed to conduct proper FVC and decided this issue against the respondent.

3. Offering of Land Outside Advertised Location After LOI:

The court stated that Clause 2(b) of the brochure allowed new land only "within the advertised location". It noted that the godown land at Mouza Kushangra was outside the designated mouza, contradicting the purpose of the location-specific advertisement.

"If the respondent No. 9 or any candidate allowed to use of land beyond the territory of advertised location, the entire purpose of the advertisement should be frustrated." The court found IOCL’s decision unsustainable.

The court concluded: "The action of the respondent authority regarding issuance of Letter of Intent and final letter of appointment in favour of respondent No. 9, are hereby quashed."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Tribunal's Decision In Share Premium Dispute | Identity Creditworthiness And Genuineness Proved | Mere High Premium Does Not Make Transaction Bogus

It further stated, "Concerned authority to take proper steps according to the brochure to fill up the vacancies in the advertised location."

The reasoned order passed by the IOCL Deputy General Manager dated December 30, 2020, in compliance with an earlier court order, was also quashed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. S. N. Mitra, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sudip Sarkar, Advocate; Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, Advocate; Mr. Arka Maiti, Advocate; Ms. Ambiya Khatun, Advocate; Mr. Md. Nasirul Haque, Advocate.

Case Title: Antara Mondal vs Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. with connected matters

Case Number: WPA 8125 of 2020 with WPA 9344 of 2021 and WPA 2124 of 2022

Bench: Justice Subhendu Samanta

[Read/Download order]