A) Abstract / Headnote

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the grant of an LPG distributorship. The respondent, an unsuccessful bidder, filed the writ after a delay of several years, alleging violations of guidelines. The Court highlighted the importance of timeliness and equity in writ petitions, emphasizing that delay defeats equity. The writ court’s discretion must account for delay, laches, and acquiescence. The Division Bench’s decision to cancel the distributorship allotment was set aside, restoring the order of the Learned Single Judge.

Keywords:

1. Delay and Laches
2. LPG Distributorship
3. Article 226
4. Equity in Writ Jurisdiction
5. Alternate Land

B) Case Details

i) Judgment Cause Title

Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others

ii) Case Number

Civil Appeal No. 5027 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date

18 April 2024

iv) Court

Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Aravind Kumar

vi) Author

Justice Aravind Kumar

vii) Citation

[2024] 4 S.C.R. 506 | 2024 INSC 314

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 226, Constitution of India (Extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction)
• Article 32, Constitution of India (Fundamental Rights and Delay)

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case

The Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court was overruled.

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects

• Constitutional Law
• Administrative Law
• Equity Principles in Judicial Review

C) Introduction and Background of the Judgment

This appeal concerns the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, focusing on equitable principles like delay and laches. The appellant was granted LPG distributorship by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) after a competitive process, including a draw of lots. The respondent, an unsuccessful bidder, challenged the grant after four years, citing alleged irregularities in land suitability and retrospective application of amended guidelines. The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but the Division Bench reversed this decision. The Supreme Court revisited these findings to emphasize the principles governing writ petitions filed after inordinate delays.

D) Facts of the Case

1. Advertisement for LPG Distributorship:
   BPCL issued an advertisement in 2012, inviting applications for an LPG distributorship under the General Public (GP) category in Jamalpur, District Burdwan.

2. Selection Process:
   Both the appellant and respondent applied and were shortlisted. A draw of lots conducted in 2013 declared the appellant as the successful candidate.

3. Approval and Land Issues:
   In 2014, BPCL granted final approval to the appellant. Allegations arose that the initially proposed land was unsuitable as it was “Barga” land. The appellant offered alternate land, which BPCL approved in 2017.

4. Delayed Challenge:
   The respondent filed a writ petition in 2017, alleging guideline violations. The Learned Single Judge dismissed it on grounds of delay and lack of locus standi, but the Division Bench allowed the respondent’s appeal, setting aside the distributorship.

5. Appeal to the Supreme Court:
   The appellant challenged the Division Bench decision, contending that the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, and no rights of the respondent had been infringed.

E) Legal Issues Raised

i. Whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches, thereby disentitling the respondent to equitable relief.
ii. Whether the guidelines governing LPG distributorship were violated and if the retrospective application of amendments was valid.
iii. Whether the respondent had locus standi to challenge the allotment after participating and losing in the selection process.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Delay and Acquiescence:
   The appellant argued that the respondent allowed several years to lapse before filing the writ, acquiescing to the allotment process and subsequent developments.

2. Legitimacy of BPCL’s Actions:
   BPCL had approved alternate land following amended guidelines, which allowed flexibility in land selection. These amendments were validly applied.

3. Judicial Precedents on Delay:
   The appellant relied on Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of West Bengal [(2009) 1 SCC 768] and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan [(2006) 4 SCC 322], emphasizing that writ petitions should be dismissed when delayed without sufficient explanation.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Violation of Guidelines:
   The respondent claimed that the land offered by the appellant violated the distributorship guidelines applicable at the time of the advertisement.

2. Retrospective Application of Amendments:
   The respondent opposed the retrospective application of the amended guidelines, asserting that the appellant’s actions could not be validated ex post facto.

3. Injustice to Rival Candidates:
   The respondent alleged favoritism in allowing alternate land, disadvantaging other candidates who complied with the original terms.

H) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Delay and Laches:
   The Court reiterated that delay defeats equity, barring writ relief to applicants who approach courts after inordinate delays without reasonable justification. The respondent was aware of all developments since 2014 but filed the writ only in 2017.

2. Discretionary Powers under Article 226:
   The exercise of writ jurisdiction must be judicial and cautious, particularly in cases involving stale claims or where third-party rights have crystallized.

3. Legitimacy of Alternate Land:
   BPCL’s acceptance of alternate land was lawful and aligned with the amended guidelines, which were intended to provide flexibility.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that while writ jurisdiction is equitable, courts must ensure timely invocation to prevent injustice and inconvenience to third parties. Allowing delayed claims risks unsettling established rights and administrative decisions.

c. Guidelines

1. Writ petitions should be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches if no sufficient explanation is offered.
2. Administrative discretion exercised within the framework of amended guidelines should not be interfered with absent evidence of mala fides.
3. Courts should refrain from entertaining challenges that disrupt settled rights or contractual relationships formed after public processes.

I) Conclusion & Comments

The judgment underscores the principle that equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights. It balances administrative flexibility with judicial oversight, ensuring that procedural fairness does not undermine efficiency or finality in public processes.

J) References

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768
2. Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322
3. Chennai Metro Water Supply v. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Article 226, Constitution of India
2. Article 32, Constitution of India