INTHEHIGHCOURTATCALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:- The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And The Hon’ble Justice Partha Pratim Roy M.A.T. 1077 of 2021 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. &Ors. - Versus – Shri Sasi Biswas &Ors. FortheHPCL : Mr. Prasun Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Deepak Agarwal, For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Shamim Ul Bari, Ms. Asmita Mitra Heard on : 16.09.2026 Judgment on : 16.09.2026 Madhuresh Prasad, J.: 1. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant Corporation and the learned advocate representing the writ petitioner/respondent. 2. The appellant issued an advertisement on 22.02.2019, for appointment of LPG distributorship. The writ petitioner applied for appointment as a distributor at Jagaddal, Bhatpara Municipality in the District of North 24 Parganas. The category applied for was “Sheheri Vitrak”. The writ petitioner/respondent offered a piece of land for construction of the showroom thereupon, in the event he was 2 selected for allotment of the distributorship. The candidature of the writ petitioner/respondent was scrutinised during field verification of credentials (FVC) when it was found that the land offered by him, was one and the same land, offered by the private respondent. The land was, therefore, found to be unacceptable under the Guidelines for Selection of Distributorship issued by the Oil Marketing Companies. The petitioner, therefore, was held ineligible during FVC, which brought the petitioner to this Court in an earlier writ proceeding. 3. In view of orders passed in the earlier writ proceeding, authorities were obliged to pass a reasoned order with respect to the petitioner’s claim. The reasoned order dated 17.04.2000 was passed thereafter. The reasoned order considered the petitioner’s claim. It recorded the “schedule of property” offered by the petitioner, and the “schedule of property” offered by the private respondent, which were one and the same. 4. The reasoned order was passed considering Clause 8(n) of the Unified Guidelines for selection of LPG distributorship, which barred the consideration of the property, if the same property was offered by more than one person. Therefore, the applications submitted by the writ petitioner and the private respondent were rejected. The same was put to challenge in the current writ proceeding before the learned Single Judge Bench, which disposed of the same directing consideration of the land offered by the writ petitioner, by a Judgement dated 13.09.2021. 5. The Judgement of the learned Single Judge Bench is the subject 3 matter of the present Intra-Court Appeal. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant/Corporation submits that the selection is covered by the unified guidelines. Unified guidelines provide a uniform set of terms and conditions, rules and eligibility for ensuring a non-discriminatory and non-discretionary consideration of various parameters enumerated therein for ensuring fairness in the selection process. Clause 8(n) of the same in unambiguous terms bars consideration of the same plot of land, if offered by more than one candidate. 7. We find that Clause 8(n) is relevant to the present case. The same reads: “The same piece of land for showroom cannot be offered by more than one applicant for a particular location against the advertisement. In case it is found at any stage that the same piece of land for showroom has been offered by more than one applicant for the same location of the advertisement, then all such applications would be rejected or if selection has been done, then the same would be cancelled.” 8. The fact that the land is a big land, and that the land is capable of accommodating two showrooms is not relevant. The Guidelines do not confer or acknowledge such discretion in the authorities to embark on an exercise to ascertain whether the size of the land is sufficient to accommodate a showroom/infrastructure for both applicants in the same land. The bar in Clause 8(n) is engrafted in the unified Guidelines applicable to one and all. 9. The learned advocate for the appellants, thus, submits that the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the offer of the same 4 land to ascertain, whether two showrooms can be accommodated therein, or not, is unsustainable. 10. He further submits that the order of the learned Single Judge Bench was stayed in the present proceeding. Therefore, during pendency of the present appeal, the authorities proceed to appoint a distributorship for the location in question. He submits that the writ petitioner did not take any steps to challenge the earlier order dated 08.06.2023 staying the learned Single Judge Bench Judgement. The subsequent events disentitles the petitioner to any relief, as there is accrual of third party rights based on laches on the part of the writ petitioner, despite the stay having granted in their presence. 11. The learned advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent on the other hand submits that the appellant should be directed to place on record the details of the person to whom the distributorship has been awarded. 12. When the matter was taken up earlier, we had adjourned the matter to enable the learned advocate for the writ petitioner to take instructions. 13. Today, when the matter is taken up, he submits that he has no instructions from his client. However, he has made the submission, which we have recorded above. 14. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant reiterates the submissions advanced/recorded before the learned Single Judge Bench. He submits that the land could accommodate more than one 5 showroom. Therefore, direction of the learned Single Judge to consider the petitioner’s claim requires no interference. 15. We have considered the rival submissions. 16. We have also considered the unified Guidelines governing the selection process. 17. We also take note of a fact that the schedule of properties submitted by the writ petitioner and private respondent was one and the same, which fact is not in dispute. 18. Such being the facts, the submission of the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/respondent that the authorities are required to consider, whether two showrooms can be accommodated in the same piece of land, is devoid of any substance whatsoever. 19. In view of the specific bar contained in the guidelines, uniformly applicable to all candidates, we are of the view that there was no discretion in the authority to embark on such an exercise. The authorities are required to proceed with the selection process, strictly following the guidelines for selection, as fairness of the selection process is inherent in the terms and conditions contained in the guidelines. 20. The Judgement of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it mandates an exercise de hors provision 8(n) of the guideline, therefore, in our opinion is clearly unsustainable. 21. We find that the Judgement of the learned Single Judge, therefore, 6 was unsustainable. 22. The appeal is allowed. 23. The order of the learned Single Judge Bench is set aside. 24. There will be no order as to costs. 25. Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (MadhureshPrasad,J.) I agree. (ParthaPratim Roy, J.)