* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 824 : 2024 INSC 225
Tapas Kumar Das
v.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 4420 of 2024)
19 March 2024
[Dipankar Datta* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether Division Bench of High Court was justified in reversing
the judgment and order of the Single Judge vide which the writ
petition of the Appellant was allowed and the Respondent was
directed to proceed with his candidature for LPG Distributorship.
Headnotes
Appellant’s candidature for LPG distributorships was cancelled
by Respondent on the ground that the land offered by him for
the showroom, was beyond the advertised location. Appellant
challenged the Cancellation Letter by filing a writ petition before
the High Court. Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed
HPCL to proceed with the evaluation of the appellant’s candidature
and decide the same within four weeks. HPCL challenged the order
of Ld. Single Judge by filing writ appeal, which was allowed by
way of the impugned order by the Division Bench of High Court.
Following questions were framed by this Court:
(i) Whether the land offered by the appellant for the showroom
is covered by the extent of “Location” stipulated in the
Advertisement and is compliant with the Unified Guidelines?
(ii) Whether the Division Bench was justified in its interference
with the order under challenge before it?
LPG Distributorship – Meaning of the term “Location” in the
Advertisement issued by the Respondent:
Held: There is no reference to any Gram/Village Panchayat in
Part 2 of the Advertisement although such reference is available
under Part 1 because HPCL did not intend the distributor to cater
to any rural area but a ‘Rurban’ area, which has to be given the
meaning attributed to ‘Rurban Vitrak’ in the Unified Guidelines,
which comprises of both rural and urban – If indeed an LPG
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 825
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
distributor were intended to be appointed in village Haripal, the
‘Type of Market/Distributorship’ would have been shown as ‘Rural’
and included in Part 1 and not Part 2 of the Advertisement – Since
there was no specific column for “Gram Panchayat” in Part 2 of
the Advertisement, which was present in Part 1, and the ‘Type of
Market/Distributorship’ was not ‘Rural’, complemented by the lack
of any detail – Apart from Haripal in the “Location” without any
detailed particulars of the place, it is implied that the location of
the concerned showroom was required to be in Haripal block and
any showroom on land located in Haripal block would fall within
the requirements of the Advertisement. [Paras 19 to 24]
LPG Distributorship – Candidature under Advertisement –
Scope of interference by the Court:
Held: It is not for the Court to adjudge the nature of the
Advertisement or the intention of those who were responsible for
drawing it up, but whether the appellant’s candidature fell within the
scope of the ‘Location’ as indicated in the Advertisement.[Para 23]
Advertisement – Binding on issuing Authority:
Held: Law is well settled that when an advertisement is made
inviting applications from the general public for appointment to a
post or for admission to any course or appointment of the present
nature, the advertisement constitutes a representation to the public
and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation – It
cannot act contrary to it. [Para 24]
LPG Distributorship – Cancellation of Candidature of an
applicant – Challenge to – Defence – Reference to pleadings:
Held: The specific words ‘mouza’ and ‘village’ are not mentioned in
the Advertisement and they cannot be defined by reference to the
definitions of the same in the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 –
An order of cancellation of the candidature of an applicant, which is
the subject matter of challenge in a court of law, has to be defended
with reference to the Advertisement and the pleadings and not with
reference to what was in contemplation of the authority issuing the
Advertisement – A court cannot be swayed by the version of a party,
which is not its pleaded case, and it should confine its decision
to the points of assail/defence raised in the pleadings. [Para 25]
LPG Distributorship – Clause/Qualification in the Advertisement
cannot be modified/rewritten by the Court:
826 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: It is not open to a writ court, much less an appeal court,
to direct the modification of any clause/qualification in the
Advertisement to suit the interest of any particular candidate or the
issuing authority – Any such direction would amount to re-writing
the clause/qualification mentioned in the Advertisement, which
would be plainly impermissible. [Para 26]
List of Acts
Constitution of India; West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.
List of Keywords
Advertisement; Interpretation of clauses; LPG distributorship;
Candidature; Location; Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG
Distributorships; Binding nature; Defence; Reference to pleadings;
Modification/rewriting of clause impermissible.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4420 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.03.2019 of the High Court
at Calcutta in MAT No.255 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Sudipta Kumar Bose, Bharat Sood, P. S. Sudheer, Rishi Maheshwari,
Ms. Anne Mathew, Ms. Miranda Solaman, Advs. for the Appellant.
Parijat Sinha, Ms. Divyam Dhyani, Ms. Reshmi Rea Sinha, Ms. Pallak
Bhagat, Zoheb Hossain, Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta, J.
THE APPEAL
1. An intra-court appellate judgment and order1
(“impugned judgment”,
hereafter) of an Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta
(“High Court”, hereafter), reversing the judgment and order2
(“order”,
1 dated 28th March, 2019
2 dated 25th January, 2019
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 827
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
hereafter) of a learned Single Judge, is called in question in the instant
civil appeal. Vide the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court allowed the writ appeal3
carried by Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited (“HPCL”, hereafter) from the order and set aside
the same. The Single Judge had, while allowing a writ petition4
of Mr.
Tapas Kumar Das (“appellant”, hereafter), directed HPCL to proceed
with his candidature for LPG5
distributorship.
BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS
2. The facts, giving rise to this appeal, lie in a narrow compass.
3. HPCL, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“IOCL”, hereafter) and Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a joint advertisement for LPG
distributorships at several locations in the 31st August, 2017 editions
of the Bangla dailies Bartaman and Anandabazar Patrika (“the
Advertisement”, hereafter). Entries bearing SI. Nos. 1 to 607 in the
Advertisement had 10 (ten) columns (“Part 1”, hereafter) and those
from SI. No. 608 onwards had 9 (nine) columns (“Part 2”, hereafter)6
.
The header “Gram Panchayat” did not feature in Part 2 and, hence,
had 1 (one) column less than Part 1.
4. Parts 1 and 2 of the Advertisement with the headers and to the extent
relevant for a decision on this appeal, as per the English translation
placed before us, are set out hereunder:
Part 1
SI.
No.
Oil
company
Location
(detail
particulars
of the place
where
applicable)
Gram
Panchayat
Block District Class Nature of
market / LPG
distributorship
/ City / Urban
/ Rural /
Inaccessible
area
distributorship
Amount
of
security
deposit
(in lakh)
Marketing
plan
1
-
607
[***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***]
3 M.A.T. No. 255 of 2019 with C.A.N. No. 1818 of 2019.
4 W.P. 1595 (W) of 2019.
5 Liquified Petroleum Gas.
6 The Advertisement, by itself, has not been split into Parts 1 and 2; the same has been done here for ease
of reference.
828 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Part 2
SI.
No.
Oil
company
Location
(detail
particulars
of the place
where
applicable)
Block District Class Nature of market /
LPG distributorship
/ City / Urban /
Rural / Inaccessible
area distributorship
Amount
of security
deposit (in
lakh)
Marketing
plan
608
-
623
[***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***]
624 HPC Haripal Haripal Hooghly SC Rurban 3 2017-18
625
-
631
[***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***] [***]
5. Interested in obtaining an LPG distributorship qua Sl. No.624
reserved for a member of the Scheduled Caste community, i.e.,
‘Location’ and ‘Block’ Haripal in the district of Hooghly, the appellant
submitted an online application for the same under the ‘SC’ category
on 16th October, 2017. The appellant’s application was found to be
in order, whereupon he was called upon to participate in the ensuing
computerised draw of lots for selection for the distributorship for
Haripal. Fortune smiled on the appellant and he emerged as winner
in the draw of lots. HPCL informed the appellant vide a letter dated
4th November, 2018 that he had been declared successful and also
that he was required to comply with the instructions contained therein.
Diligently, the appellant deposited a demand draft of Rs. 30,000/-
with HPCL and submitted relevant land documents in compliance
with the letter dated 4th November, 2018.
6. One Sujoy Kumar Das (“added respondent”, hereafter) lodged a
complaint dated 9th November, 2018 with HPCL questioning the
appellant’s candidature on the basis that the land offered by him for
the showroom was in mouza7
Gopinagar and not in mouza Haripal.
Incidentally, the added respondent had participated in a previous
round of selection conducted by HPCL for the same location, i.e.,
Haripal, and his candidature was rejected by HPCL on the ground
7 As per Wilson’s Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms of British India, ‘Mauza’ or Mauja in Hindi and
Mauji in Bengali is a village, understanding by that term one or more clusters of habitations, and all the
lands belonging to their proprietary inhabitants : a Mauza is defined by authority to be ‘a parcel or parcels
of lands having a separate name in the revenue records, and of known limits’.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 829
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
that the land for the showroom offered by him was not located in
village Haripal. Upon cancellation of the appellant’s candidature, the
Chief Regional Manager of HPCL (“fourth respondent”, hereafter)
intimated the same to the added respondent vide letter dated 2nd
January, 2019 and assured to him refund of Rs. 5,000/- which he
had deposited as complaint fee, shortly.
7. Close on the heels thereof, the fourth respondent addressed a letter
dated 2nd January, 2019 cancelling the appellant’s candidature for
the LPG distributorship (“Cancellation Letter”, hereafter). Therein, it
was stated that the land offered by the appellant for the showroom
at “Plot No. LR-1220, Khatian No. LR-311, Mouza-Gopinagar, Gram
Panchayat-Haripal Ashuthsh (sic, Ashutosh), Block Haripal, District
Hooghly” pursuant to a registered lease dated 16th October, 20188
for
a period of 16 (sixteen) years was beyond the advertised location;
hence, the appellant’s proposed showroom had failed to meet the
eligibility criteria as per clause 8 A(n) of the Brochure for Unified
Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships (“Unified Guidelines”,
hereafter), and the deposit of Rs. 30,000/- would stand forfeited.
8. It was then that the appellant invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the Cancellation
Letter. The Single Judge, noticing that the Advertisement showed
the location of the distributorship as Block Haripal, observed that
“there was no specific requirement of Gram Panchayat or mouza
to disqualify” the appellant’s candidature. Upon being satisfied that
the land offered by the appellant for the showroom was within the
limits of the advertised location, the learned Single Judge allowed
the writ petition, set aside the Cancellation Letter, and directed HPCL
to proceed with the evaluation of the appellant’s candidature and
decide the same within four weeks upon the appellant completing
all required formalities.
9. Aggrieved by the order, HPCL invoked the appellate jurisdiction of
the High Court and laid a challenge thereto. The Division Bench
referred to the definitions of ‘Gram Panchayat’ and ‘mouza’ in the
West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973 (“Panchayat Act”, hereafter) and
while allowing the appeal by the impugned judgment, held that “mouza
Haripal has a separate and distinct existence”, the “offered land at
8 the date was subsequently corrected vide letter dated 10th January, 2019 to read 16th October, 2017.
830 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
mouza Gopinagar is not what is contemplated in the advertisement
for appointment of LPG distributors at Haripal” and in such view of
the matter HPCL “was justified in coming to the conclusion that the
writ petitioner failed to fulfil the eligibility criteria”.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
10. Mr. Sudipta Kumar Bose, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant, seeking our interference with the impugned judgment
submitted inter alia that:
a. The Division Bench fell into error by reading into the
Advertisement, conditions which had not been categorically
laid down by HPCL. The Advertisement did not state that the
showroom was to be located in any particular mouza, and that
the Advertisement did not refer to any Gram Panchayat as the
specific location either.
b. The appellant had been declared as the successful candidate
after due verification of his eligibility and there could have been
no occasion for HPCL to disqualify him on the complaint of the
added respondent, and that too without putting the appellant
on notice.
c. HPCL, having issued the Advertisement, could not have altered
the rules and guidelines after the appellant was declared eligible
and successful.
d. The entries from serial no. 608 onwards in the Advertisement
did not bear any column for Gram Panchayat as the locations
therein were urban or semi-urban; implying that there was
no error in the Advertisement and such an omission was
conscious.
e. The Single Judge had rightly observed that the advertised
location for the concerned showroom was Haripal with reference
to specification of Block Haripal; and since the appellant had
offered land for the showroom at a location within the jurisdictional
limits of Haripal Police Station and within geographical limits
of Haripal Block, consequently, the same should have been
considered to be covered by the advertised location.
11. Mr. Parijat Sinha, learned counsel appearing for HPCL, in support
of upholding the impugned judgment submitted inter alia that:
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 831
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
a. The Unified Guidelines are comprehensive in nature and left
no room for ambiguity as to the location requirements to obtain
an LPG distributorship from inter alia HPCL.
b. In the State of West Bengal, villages were not identified as
units of revenue, but they were in fact identified as mouzas.
Therefore, the boundary of any village could only be defined
in terms of mouzas. Hence, the Advertisement had not been
issued for Block Haripal, but only for the mouza/village Haripal
as per the third column of Part 2 of the Advertisement. Hence,
the intention of mentioning Haripal in the third column was to
indicate Haripal mouza/village, and not the cluster of villages/
towns/cities.
c. Clause 8 A(n) of the Unified Guidelines provided for the
requirements of the showroom to be owned/leased by
the concerned applicant desirous of obtaining an LPG
distributorship. A reading of the Unified Guidelines, along with
the fact that the fifth column of Part 2 of the Advertisement
was for the District, the fourth column was for the Block, and
the third column was for the Location, meant that the third
column specified the uniqueness of the location intending it
to be for the concerned village; it would be incorrect to read
the third and fourth columns as being synonymous. Hence, a
mention of Haripal in the third column meant mouza/village
Haripal and not Block Haripal.
d. In this vein, since the appellant’s showroom fell within mouza
Gopinagar, the same made his candidature ineligible; though
located in Block Haripal, it was not within mouza Haripal.
12. Appearing for the added respondent and seeking dismissal of the
appeal, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel submitted inter alia that:
a. The added respondent was a proper and necessary party in W.P.
1595 (W) of 2019 before the High Court since the Cancellation
Letter had been issued as a consequence of acceptance of
the complaint dated 9th November 2018. Further, the added
respondent’s appeal challenging the order was also decided
vide the impugned common judgment.
b. The added respondent was also an applicant for the LPG
distributorship as per the Advertisement, and that it would be
832 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
prejudicial for him if the impugned judgment were set aside or
modified.
c. HPCL had, on an earlier occasion, rejected the added
respondent’s candidature for LPG distributorship on grounds
similar to the reasons for cancellation of the appellant’s
distributorship and, therefore, was justified in taking a consistent
and uniform stand.
d. Extending any relief to the appellant, on facts and in the
circumstances, could be inappropriate.
Analysis
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the order of the Single
Judge as well as the other materials on record.
14. The limited issues that we are tasked to decide in this appeal are:
(i) Whether the land offered by the appellant for the showroom
is covered by the extent of “Location” stipulated in the
Advertisement and is compliant with the Unified Guidelines?
(ii) Whether the Division Bench was justified in its interference with
the order under challenge before it?
15. A cursory look at the Advertisement informs us that it contemplated
the location of the relevant distributorships in the manner such that
the fifth column of Part 2 of the Advertisement indicated the ‘District’,
the fourth column the ‘Block’, and the third column the “Location” with
the words “particulars of the place wherever applicable” following it
in brackets. Also, in Part 1 of the Advertisement, as noted above,
there was an additional column for “Gram Panchayat”. This is
conspicuously missing from Part 2.
16. Viewed thus, what we find is that HPCL intended to appoint an LPG
distributor at a location named Haripal, situate within Haripal block
in the district of Hooghly, reserved for SC, with ‘Rurban’ shown as
the Type of Market/Distributorship. Much would, in our opinion, turn
on ‘Rurban’ which was not noticed either by the Single Judge or the
Division Bench, as the discussion follows.
17. In course of arguments, we heard Mr. Sinha submitting that there was
an error in not mentioning the “Gram Panchayat” in the Advertisement
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 833
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
for the subject location. In other words, there was a mistake in the
Advertisement insofar as Sl. No.624 is concerned. However, a course
correction measure was sought to be adopted in the written notes of
arguments filed on behalf of HPCL which, as would unfold hereafter,
does more harm than good to its cause. It is stated in the written
notes that “from Sl. No.608 onwards, all of the locations advertised
… were either urban or semi-urban with regard to the nature of the
market/LPG distributorship; hence, the relevant Gram Panchayat was
not mentioned in the said Advertisement”. It is also stated therein that
in terms of the Advertisement, the appellant “ought to have offered
land located within (sic) in village/mouza location – Haripal (column
3), which is the advertised location” (bold in original).
18. HPCL having advertised Haripal as the location within Haripal block
for the LPG distributorship and without there being anything more in
the Advertisement with specifics as to the ‘locality’, the candidature
of the appellant and the land offered by him for the showroom had
to be considered bearing in mind the relevant clauses of the Unified
Guidelines, viz. clauses 1 c. i. and 1 y. defining ‘Rurban Vitrak’9
and
‘Location’10, respectively, and 8 A (n) regarding ‘Showroom’11.
19. It would be convenient at this stage to look at Sl. Nos. 608 to 631
of the Advertisement, comprised in Part 2 (supra). In all but one of
the locations, LPG distributorships were on offer at the instance of
9 Rurban Vitrak: In this document, the word Rural Urban means LPG distributor located in ‘Urban Area’
and also providing service to the LPG Customers in specified ‘Rural Area’, generally covering all villages
falling within 15 Kms. From the municipal limits of the LPG distributorship location and or the area
specified by the respective OMCs. LPG distributors servicing this area will be called Rurban Vitrak.
10 Location – In this document, word location means the area identified for setting up of new LPG Distributor.
It can be a locality/village/cluster of villages/town or city which is mentioned in the Notice for Appointment
of LPG Distributors.
11 Showroom: (Applicable only for … Rurban Vitrak … locations and not for …)
The applicant should ‘Own’ a suitable shop for Showroom of minimum size … as on the last date
for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the
advertised location i.e. within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the
column of ‘location’ in the advertisement.
In case locality is also specified under the column of ‘location’ in the advertisement, the candidate should
own … in the said locality.
In case an applicant has more than one shop … at the advertised location or locality as specified
under the column of ‘location’ in the advertisement, the details of the same can also be provided in the
application.
The applicant should have ownership as defined under the term ‘Own’ …
Applicants having registered lease deed commencing on any date prior to the date of advertisement
will also be considered provided the lease is valid for a minimum period of 15 years from the date of
advertisement.
…
834 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
IOCL. Majorly, the locations have ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’
as ‘Urban’ while the rest are ‘Rurban’. In several of the locations
advertised ranging between Sl. Nos. 608 and 631, except Sl. No.624
being the subject location, the locations within brackets indicate the
locality12 where the concerned OMC13 intended to appoint an LPG
distributor. As and by way of example, one may profitably refer to
Sl. Nos. 613 and 619. While both indicate Kolkata as locations, the
former within brackets has Salt Lake within Bidhannagar Municipality
and the latter China Town within Kolkata Municipal Corporation areas.
We read Salt Lake and China Town as the ‘locality’ in the location
Kolkata to sync locality with ‘Location’. It is also significant to note
another advertised location in the district of Hooghly. Sl. No. 610
indicates that in Nabagram (Konnagar), being the ‘Location’ within
Shrirampur block, IOCL intended to appoint an LPG distributor. We
take judicial notice of the fact that Konnagar is a town and also a
municipality in the district of Hooghly with Nabagram as the locality14.
However, significantly, Sl. No. 624 does not go beyond indicating
Haripal as the location.
20. Judicial notice is also taken of the fact that Haripal is a community
development block being part of Chandannagore sub-division, in the
district of Hooghly, West Bengal. It is true that as per the Census 2011
Report downloaded from www.census2011.co.in, [being Annexure
R-1/1 of the counter affidavit of HPCL filed in this proceeding], Haripal
and Gopinagar are villages within Haripal block but, for reasons more
than one, we are not persuaded to accept the claim of HPCL that it
intended to appoint an LPG distributor at Haripal village.
21. First, the stand taken in the written notes entirely demolishes the
plinth on which the impugned judgment rests. Reference to any village
or mouza, be it Haripal or Gopinagar, is rendered irrelevant in the
circumstances in the light of the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’ being
shown as ‘Rurban’ in the Advertisement under Column 7, which has
to be given the meaning attributed to ‘Rurban Vitrak’ in the Unified
Guidelines. If appointment of a distributor were intended for a village/
12 In terms of the definition of ‘Location’, a locality could also be a location.
13 Oil Marketing Company.
14 ‘gram’ in Nabagram is not to be mistaken for a village.
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 835
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
mouza, i.e., Haripal, it defies logic why instead of ‘Gramin Vitrak’15,
‘Rurban Vitrak’ was shown as the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’. It
is also significant to note that if HPCL meant Haripal village as the
intended location for appointment of an LPG distributor, it has not
explained why there is no reference to any Gram/Village Panchayat
in Part 2 (supra) although such reference is available under Part
1 (supra). This, we feel, is obvious because HPCL did not intend
the distributor to cater to any rural area but a ‘Rurban’ area which
comprises of both rural and urban.
22. Secondly, the contention of HPCL that Haripal as shown both under
the columns ‘Block’ and ‘Location’ are not synonymous and that
Haripal should be read and understood as Haripal village appears
to be one advanced in desperation. The appellant, or for that matter
any other individual interested in the distributorship, could not have
possibly projected his own imagination and discover all the facts
and circumstances that were in the contemplation of the officers of
HPCL to be fulfilled by him. At the cost of repetition, Haripal under
the column ‘Location’ appears to be unqualified. In the present
case, Haripal being the advertised location and without mention of
locality but with the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’ being shown
as ‘Rurban’, it is quite but natural for an individual to perceive that
land offered for the showroom, if not located anywhere in the entire
Haripal block, must at least be located within certain identifiable
limits having relation with Haripal, such as the jurisdictional limits of
Haripal Police Station. If indeed an LPG distributor were intended to
be appointed in village Haripal, the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’
would undoubtedly have been shown as ‘Rural’ and included in Part
1 (supra) and not Part 2 (supra) of the Advertisement. Unless the
relevant Part and the columns thereunder of the Advertisement are
interpreted in the manner as above, the same would lead to utter
absurdity.
23. The problem can be viewed from another perspective. While
completing our task, it is not for us to adjudge the nature of the
Advertisement or the intention of those who were responsible for
15 Gramin Vitrak: In this document, the word ‘Rural Area’ will have the definition of ‘Rural’ as per census
2011. LPG distributorship located in ‘Rural Area’ will be called as Gramin Vitrak and will service the LPG
Customers of the specified rural area. Generally it will cover all villages falling within 15 KMs from the
boundary limits of the LPG distributorship location and or the area specified by the respective OMCs.
836 [2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
drawing it up, but whether the appellant’s candidature fell within the
scope of the ‘Location’ as indicated in the Advertisement.
24. Law is well settled that when an advertisement is made inviting
applications from the general public for appointment to a post or
for admission to any course or appointment of the present nature,
the advertisement constitutes a representation to the public and
the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot
act contrary to it. What bears heavy upon us is that, any person of
reasonable prudence could assume that since there was no specific
column for “Gram Panchayat” in Part 2 (supra) of the Advertisement,
which was present in Part 1, and the ‘Type of Market/Distributorship’
was not ‘Rural’, complemented by the lack of any detail – apart
from Haripal in the “Location” without any detailed particulars of the
place, would imply that the location of the concerned showroom was
required to be in Haripal block and any showroom on land located in
Haripal block would fall within the requirements of the Advertisement.
25. We have also kept in mind that the specific words ‘mouza’ and ‘village’
do not find any mention in the Advertisement and reference to the
definitions of the same in the Panchayat Act by the Division Bench
as well as by Mr. Sinha in course of his submissions is misconceived.
An order of cancellation of the candidature of an applicant, which is
the subject matter of challenge in a court of law, has to be defended
with reference to the Advertisement and the pleadings and not with
reference to what was in contemplation of the authority issuing the
Advertisement. It is the norm that a court cannot be swayed by the
version of a party, which is not its pleaded case, and that it should
confine its decision to the points of assail/defence raised in the
pleadings. Any such argument ought to have been traceable in the
pleadings, and could not simply have been put before this Court as
an afterthought.
26. In a situation akin to this, had the appellant, or any intending
candidate, known in advance of such a narrower requirement, then
they would likely have been more vigilant in fulfilling such criteria
for the location of the distributorship. In arguendo, unfortunately, it
is HPCL’s cross to bear that the Advertisement, if not incorrectly, is
inadequately worded. It is not open to a writ court, much less an
appeal court, to direct the modification of any clause/qualification
in the Advertisement to suit the interest of any particular candidate
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 837
Tapas Kumar Das v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.
or the issuing authority even. Any such direction would amount to
re-writing the clause/qualification mentioned in the Advertisement,
which would be plainly impermissible.
27. Turning to the added respondent, we can only sympathize with him. If
at all the added respondent had earlier been the victim of an arbitrary
rejection of his candidature by HPCL, he ought to have challenged
such action by instituting an appropriate proceeding. Not having so
instituted, the present appeal is not an appropriate proceeding where
this Court can look into his grievance and address it.
Conclusion
28. For the reasons aforementioned, the first issue is answered in the
affirmative while the second in the negative.
29. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and the
order of the Single Judge restored. The present appeal is, accordingly,
allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
30. It is, however, made clear that apart from the questions that we have
decided, no part of our observations shall be treated as expression of
opinion on the further requirements/compliances, if any, with regard
to HPCL proceeding with the appellant’s candidature for the LPG
distributorship. The same may be decided as per the applicable laws
and guidelines by the competent authority of HPCL.
31. Since the Advertisement is more than half a decade old, we hope
and trust that HPCL would henceforth proceed with expedition to
cater to the needs of its future customers.
32. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
Headnotes prepared by: Result of the case:
Adeeba Mujahid, Hony. Associate Editor Appeal allowed.
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
