Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition related to a dispute over the distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) distributorship under the Rajib Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) Scheme on a portion of the joint property for which partition suit is pending, a single-judge bench comprising of Bibek Chaudhuri,* J., held that when a decision involves a commercial transaction, it is primarily guided by commercial considerations, including price, quality, ability to deliver goods or services, and past experience. The Court further held that no public interest or public law element was involved in the distributorship decision made by IOCL, therefore, the same cannot be held as arbitrary or irrational. The Court upheld the private respondent’s LPG distributorship from IOCL.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner was the original owner of a piece of land in Mouza Nashipur by virtue of a registered deed of settlement executed in 1972. After his death, the petitioner and other legal heirs jointly possessed the land as co-sharers. The private respondent was one of the co-sharers. Later, a dispute arose, leading to a joint suit for partition against the private respondent in respect of the land.
The petitioner filed this writ petition alleging that the private respondent applied for Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) distributorship from the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) under the Rajib Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (R.G.G.L.V) scheme, becoming the second selected candidate for LPG distributorship in the Nashipur area. The private respondent obtained distributorship and began construction of an office and godown for LPG distributorship on a portion of the joint property without disclosing the pending suit for partition.
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner claimed that this was in violation of IOCL’s policy, and the private respondent had misrepresented facts to obtain the license. The petitioner also alleged that the private respondent was working as a Sahayak of Anganwadi Karmi in a government school and was not entitled to LPG distributorship. The petitioner contended that the land in question was jointly owned and that until a partition was conducted, the private respondent could not claim exclusive ownership of the portion where she constructed the godown.
In response, the respondents (including IOCL and the private respondent) filed affidavits opposing the petitioner’s claims. It was argued that the distributorship was granted to the private respondent following due selection procedures, including a draw of lots, issuance of letters of intent, and relevant licenses.
Moot Point
-
Whether the private respondent’s grant of LPG distributorship from IOCL was in violation of IOCL’s policy and law due to the pending suit for partition and alleged misrepresentation?
-
Whether the private respondent’s employment as a Sahayak of Anganwadi Karmi affects her eligibility for LPG distributorship?
-
Whether a joint property’s ownership must be settled before a co-sharer can claim exclusive rights to a portion of it?
Court’s Assessment
The Court referred to Sanjay Kumar Shukla v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., (2014) 3 SCC 493, and noted that commercial considerations were paramount in contracts. The Court relied on the principle that decisions involving commercial transactions, even if made by a public body or corporation, are primarily guided by commercial considerations and stated that public interest is only involved when specific factors are present, such as the expenditure of public money, public purposes, and the direct interest of the public in the contract. The Court opined that, in the present case, the decision to grant distributorship did not involve public interest, and the dispute between the parties over land ownership did not affect the distributorship decision. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the distributorship granted to the private respondent.
The Court also emphasized that it would only interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the decision-making process was perverse, or the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable. In the present case, the Court found that a dispute between parties over possession of land or ownership of a godown did not involve public interest unless the decision-making process was arbitrary or irrational.
The Court held that the private respondent’s grant of LPG distributorship by IOCL was not in violation of IOCL’s policy and law, and there was no merit in the petitioner’s claims. The Court held that the distributorship decision was based on commercial considerations and did not involve public interest or public funds.
Court’s Decision
The Court upheld the private respondent’s LPG distributorship from IOCL, emphasizing that the case did not involve public interest, and the IOCL’s decision was not arbitrary or irrational. The writ petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
[Sayed Afridi Sarkar v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3576, order dated 12-10-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy and Mr. Anirban Das, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, Counsel for the IOCL
Mr. Ayan Basu, Mr. Samrat Das and Mr. Sumit Routh, Counsel for the Respondent 8
Buy Constitution of India HERE
