Summary
HPCL could not cancel an LPG distributorship candidature by reading an unadvertised village-only restriction into the location “Haripal”. The advertisement specified a Rurban distributorship, omitted the Gram Panchayat column used elsewhere and gave no narrower locality. Land within Haripal block satisfied the disputed location requirement on that wording. The Court restored the Single Judge’s direction to continue evaluating the candidature, while leaving other eligibility and compliance requirements to HPCL under the applicable guidelines.
Issues
- Whether Haripal meant only a particular village despite the advertisement’s wording and Rurban classification.
- Whether an issuing authority could defend cancellation through an unstated narrower intention.
- Whether success on location eligibility required immediate award or further evaluation.
Provisions considered
- Article 226; public-authority adherence to advertised criteria, Constitution of IndiaThe issuing authority was bound by its public representation. Courts could not rewrite the advertisement to add an unexpressed location qualification. (¶¶ 8, 24, 25, 26)
- Clauses 1(c)(i), 1(y) and 8A(n), Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG DistributorshipsThe definitions of Rurban distributorship, location and showroom requirements informed the advertisement’s meaning. The unqualified location and absence of a specific locality did not support the asserted village-only restriction. (¶¶ 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24)
Held
- The relevant advertisement had separate location, block and district columns but no Gram Panchayat column, unlike its rural section. It described Haripal as a Rurban distributorship and did not specify a village, mouza or narrower locality. Read with the guidelines and other advertised entries, it did not confine the showroom to Haripal village. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Applicants could act on the advertisement’s reasonable meaning without discovering officials’ unexpressed intentions. In these circumstances, a showroom within Haripal block satisfied the disputed location criterion. Definitions of village and mouza in the Panchayat Act could not insert restrictions absent from the advertisement. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- An advertisement inviting public applications is a representation binding on its issuer. A cancellation must be defended by the advertisement and pleaded case, rather than afterthoughts. Neither the writ court nor appellate court could rewrite an inadequately worded qualification to suit the authority or a particular candidate. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26)
- The complainant’s earlier rejection in another selection did not justify maintaining this cancellation. Any challenge to his own rejection required appropriate proceedings, which he had not instituted; this appeal was not the forum to remedy that grievance. (¶ 27)
- The Division Bench judgment was set aside and the Single Judge’s order restored. HPCL was to proceed with evaluation, rather than automatically award the distributorship: other requirements and compliances remained for its competent authority under applicable law and guidelines, with expedition expected. (¶¶ 8, 28, 29, 30, 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench judgment set aside and Single Judge order restored. HPCL to continue evaluating the candidature, with other eligibility and compliance questions left open. Parties to bear their own costs.