A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case discusses the legality of the cancellation of Tapas Kumar Das’s candidature for an LPG distributorship advertised by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL). The crux lies in whether the land offered by the appellant for the distributorship was within the advertised “Location” and whether the Division Bench of the High Court justifiably reversed the Single Judge’s decision that favored the appellant. The court delved into the interpretation of the advertisement terms, the legal principles governing public advertisements, and the procedural requirements for determining eligibility under the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships. The Supreme Court ultimately restored the Single Judge’s decision, holding that HPCL’s interpretation of “Location” lacked clarity and was inconsistent with the advertisement’s terms.

Keywords: LPG distributorship, advertisement interpretation, Unified Guidelines, judicial review, writ appeal.

B) CASE DETAILS

i. Judgement Cause Title:
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

ii. Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 4420 of 2024

iii. Judgement Date:
19 March 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sanjay Kumar

vi. Author:
Justice Dipankar Datta

vii. Citation:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 824

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 226, Constitution of India
• Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships
• West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973

ix. Judgments Overruled:
Reversal of the Division Bench’s order from MAT No. 255 of 2019 by the Calcutta High Court.

x. Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Contract Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose when HPCL canceled the appellant’s LPG distributorship candidature, citing non-compliance with the location requirements specified in the advertisement. The appellant’s challenge before the Calcutta High Court succeeded before a Single Judge, who directed HPCL to process the application. However, a Division Bench overturned this decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court. The core issue was the interpretation of the term “Location” in the advertisement and whether the Division Bench erred in interfering with the Single Judge’s judgment.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Joint Advertisement Issued:
   On 31st August 2017, HPCL, along with IOCL and BPCL, advertised LPG distributorships for multiple locations, including “Haripal” in the district of Hooghly, West Bengal.

2. Application by Appellant:
   The appellant, a Scheduled Caste candidate, applied for the distributorship for “Haripal” and emerged successful in the computerized draw of lots.

3. Cancellation of Candidature:
   A complaint alleged that the appellant’s proposed showroom land fell in “Mouza Gopinagar,” outside “Mouza Haripal,” leading to HPCL canceling the candidature.

4. Writ Petition and Appeal:
   The appellant challenged the cancellation before the Calcutta High Court. The Single Judge ruled in his favor, but the Division Bench reversed this decision, justifying HPCL’s action.

5. Supreme Court Intervention:
   The Supreme Court examined whether the interpretation of “Location” in the advertisement aligned with the Unified Guidelines and principles of administrative law.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the land offered by the appellant was within the extent of “Location” specified in the advertisement.
2. Whether the Division Bench correctly interfered with the Single Judge’s ruling.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. The advertisement was ambiguous about the term “Location.”
2. The absence of “Gram Panchayat” in Part 2 of the advertisement indicated no specific rural requirement.
3. HPCL could not introduce post-facto interpretations inconsistent with the published terms.
4. The appellant’s offered land was within “Haripal Block,” satisfying the eligibility requirements.
5. The cancellation was arbitrary and violated the appellant’s legitimate expectations.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. “Location” referred to “Mouza Haripal,” distinct from “Haripal Block.”
2. The Unified Guidelines mandated strict compliance with the specific “Location” criteria.
3. The appellant’s proposed land in “Mouza Gopinagar” was ineligible as it fell outside “Mouza Haripal.”
4. The Division Bench rightly upheld HPCL’s interpretation and cancellation decision.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 226, Constitution of India: Governs the jurisdiction of High Courts in writ petitions.
2. Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships: Mandates location-specific criteria for LPG showrooms.
3. West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973: Defines terms like “Mouza” and “Gram Panchayat,” relevant for rural and semi-urban categorizations.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court held that the term “Location” in the advertisement referred broadly to the block-level area rather than a specific mouza. HPCL could not alter or reinterpret its terms to suit subsequent objections.

b. Obiter Dicta:
HPCL should ensure clarity in advertisements to prevent ambiguity and potential litigation.

c. Guidelines Issued:

1. Advertisements must explicitly define location requirements.
2. Unified Guidelines should be uniformly applied, and deviations avoided.
3. Candidature cancellation must adhere to the published advertisement and guidelines.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India [(2021) 10 SCC 285]
2. Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2019) 3 SCC 187]

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Constitution of India
2. Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships
3. West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973