Consent Required Only When A Jointly Owned Or Leased Out Property Is Offered For Distributorship By Co-Owners Or Co-Lessee: SC
The Supreme Court held that challenging the allotment of LPG distributorship arguing that Acceptance of alternate land by the successful applicant is fallacious.
The Supreme Court held that the consent of from all co-owners or co- lessees is required when a jointly owned or jointly leased out property is offered for distributorship by one of the co-owners or a co-lessee.
The Court dismissed the Appeal challenging the allotment of an LPG distributorship wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the Appellant’s contention that the successful applicant’s (Respondent) distributorship application suffered from disqualification.
A Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “The argument is that the very factum of the alternate land being offered and accepted, substantiates the contention of disability visited on the 4th respondent by reason of the land offered in the application being identical to that offered by another applicant; which contention we have already found to be fallacious.”
Senior Advocate V. Giri represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) had invited applications for LPG distributorships under various categories across different locations. The Respondent was selected through a draw of lots. However, the selection process faced challenges due to changes in Ministry guidelines.
The Appellant argued that the Respondent's application was disqualified because the same land was offered by two applicants. The Appellant also alleged that the Respondent later offered an alternate land that was not in possession at the time of the application, violating IOC's guidelines.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had relied on the decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley wherein it was categorically held that the modification to the guidelines with respect to allotment of L.P.G. distributorship provided for offering alternate land where the land initially offered by the applicant was found deficient or not suitable or change of nature of the land, subject to specifications as laid down in the advertisements being complied with.
“The alternate land has been offered only in the context of the shifting stance of the lessor; the acceptance of which by the Corporation was possible as per the guidelines, which provided more flexibility in the allotment process. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgments impugned and reject the contentions raised,” the Court remarked.
The Bench held that challenging the allotment of LPG distributorship arguing that Acceptance of alternate land by the successful applicant is fallacious.
"Consent, as we discern, would be required only if the land offered in the application is one with either joint ownership or joint lease. Such a jointly owned or jointly leased out property when offered for the distributorship, by one of the co-owners or a co-lessee, then a consent from all the other co-owners or colessees would be required. That situation does not arise here since the land offered was owned by one individual and the lease was also to the 4th respondent alone," the Court explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “Accordingly, the Civil Appeal stands dismissed. The respective parties to bear their own costs.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Jagwant Kaur v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 112)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Giri; AOR A Velan; Advocates Navpreet Kaur, Nilay Rai, Prince Singh and Harshad Sunder
Respondents: Senior Advocate Senthil Jagadeesan; AOR Mrinal Kanwar and Priya Puri; Advocates Kirti Leela Ratnam, Punit Manoj Agarwwal, Vaibhav, Parul Sharma, Ritim Mangla, Pinki Aggarwal, Sachin Dubey, Vibhav Srivastava and Sharad Kumar Puri
