The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.25434 of 2022 Kunu Munda ..... Petitioner Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Represented By Adv. - Arjuna Charana Behera -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Sanjeev Udgata, Adv. for HPCL CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 14.08.2025 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-HPCL. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to quash the impugned order dated 25.08.2022 and to further give a direction to the Opposite Party to issue LOI in favour of the Petitioner within a specified period of time. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that pursuant to an advertisement dated 16.11.2016 at Annexure- 1 for selection, engagement and appointment of LPG distributors, the Petitioner submitted his application along with Page 1 of 6. other eligible candidates. He further submitted that the Petitioner was selected and initially LOI was issued by the Opposite Party No.1 in favour of the Petitioner on 21.08.2017 at Annexure-2. As per the condition of the LOI, the Petitioner was required to produce certain clearances from the local authorities. After receiving the LOI, the Petitioner made every attempt to obtain clearances from the various local authorities, however, there was a delay in getting such clearances. As a result, the Petitioner could not submit the documents along with clearance as was required by the Opposite Party-Company. 5. While this was the position, the Opposite Party-Company issued a reminder on 24.02.2018 at Annexure-4. On perusal of the aforesaid reminder it appears that the Petitioner was given last reminder for the purpose of LPG distributorship under the ST category. As per the LOI the Petitioner was supposed to commission the distributorship within four months from the date of issuance of the LOI. However, the Petitioner had failed to commission such distributorship due to lack of clearances from the various authorities. Questioning the delay in commissioning of the LPG distributorship, the Opposite Party No.1-company issued the reminder under Annexure-4 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by such reminder, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Challenging the said notice at Annexure-4, the Petitioner initially approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.19558 of 2018 with a prayer for a direction to the District Magistrate, Cuttack to issue a clearance certificate in favour of the Petitioner as per Rule 48 of Gas Cylinder Rules, 2016. The aforesaid writ Page 2 of 6.
Decision
application was disposed of by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the grievance of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was issued with a clearance certificate on 12.03.2020 and the corresponding NOC is valid till 26.12.2032. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that after getting the license from the District Magistrate, Cuttack as well as NOC from the authorities as has been stated hereinabove, the Petitioner again approached the Opposite Party No.1-Oil Company. However, vide order dated 25.08.2022, the Opposite Party No.1-Oil Company informed the Petitioner that the request of the Petitioner for re-issuance of LOI dated 21.08.2017 which was withdrawn on 20.06.2018 deserves no consideration. Accordingly, they communicated their rejection to the Petitioner indicating therein that there is no provision for re-issuance of LOI once it is withdrawn. Being aggrieved by such letter dated 25.08.2022 at Annexure-10 the Petitioner has filed the present writ application. 8. Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 submitted that the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 have filed a preliminary counter affidavit. Further, referring to the said counter affidavit, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 contended that several intimations were given to the Petitioner. He further submitted that the Petitioner requested the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 on 28.09.2020 and on 23.11.2020 to commission the LPG distributorship along with the clearance certificate, however, by then the LOI issued in favour of the Petitioner was already withdrawn. Therefore, there was no scope to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. He further Page 3 of 6. submitted that the aforesaid fact of withdrawal of LOI was intimated to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1- Company invited the other two candidates, they also failed to comply with the conditions. As such, the dealership was not allotted to any of the candidates pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. 9. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Company further contended that although the LOI in favour of the Petitioner was withdrawn and the other two candidates were found ineligible for engagement as LPG distributorship, however, no further advertisement has been made in the meantime for selection of LPG distributorship for the locality which is the subject of matter of dispute in the present writ application. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Oil Company submitted that the present writ application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ application, this Court finds that the only issue that is required to be decided in the present writ application is whether the Petitioner can be given another opportunity to produce the clearance certificate/ documents and whether the case of the Petitioner could be re- considered for engagement as a LPG distributor? On perusal of the record it appears that initially the Petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1, the Petitioner got selected and, accordingly, the Oil company issued LOI on 21.08.2017 in favour of the Petitioner. Page 4 of 6. 11. Records further disclose that the Petitioner failed to comply with the conditions mentioned in the LOI. Accordingly, after giving due notice, the LOI was withdrawn on 20.06.2018. The aforesaid facts was also intimated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 25.08.2022 at Annexure-10 to the writ application. No doubt, the said communication dated 25.08.2022 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. It is the admitted case of the Petitioner that there was some delay in getting the clearance from the authority and in commissioning of the LPG distributorship. It is also a fact that the Petitioner had informed the Opp. Party No.1 about the delay in getting such clearances from the statutory authority. However, the parties are bound by the conditions agreed upon in view of the LOI issued by the Opposite Party No.1 which was accepted by the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner failed to produce the clearance and could not commission the LPG distributorship, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party No.1 has not committed any illegality in withdrawing the LOI on 20.06.2018. 12. Taking into consideration the subsequent development that in the meantime the Petitioner, who belongs to the ST category, has already obtained the necessary license/ clearances from the authorities. The Opposite Party No.1-Company has not yet appointed any person in the locality pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. In such view of the matter, it is clear that no LPG distributor has been appointed in that locality pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1. 13. Consequently, this Court while disposing of the present writ application grants liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Page 5 of 6. Opposite Party No.1-Company along with necessary documents/ clearances/ license within a period of four weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.1-Company shall consider the case of the Petitioner taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner was initially selected pursuant to the advertisement under Annexure-1 and the LOI was issued in his favour on 21.08.2017 which was subsequently withdrawn on 20.06.2018. In the event no LPG distributor has been appointed, the Opposite Party No.1 shall consider the case of the Petitioner sympathetically within a period of two months from the date of the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.1-Oil Company keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner belongs to the ST category. 14. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Page 6 of 6. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 26-Aug-2025 17:50:33