19 March 2024 Business Laws >> Business & Commercial Law   |   Consumer Law >> Civil & Consumer Law  

The Supreme Court of India has overturned a lower court decision that disqualified Mr. Tapas Kumar Das from obtaining an LPG distributorship. The dispute arose due to a discrepancy between the advertisement for the distributorship and the specific location requirements set by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL).

Facts:

In 2017, HPCL advertised LPG distributorships in several locations across India. Mr. Das applied for a distributorship in Haripal Block, Hooghly district, West Bengal. He emerged successful in the selection process and met the initial verification for eligibility. However, another applicant, Mr. Sujoy Kumar Das, challenged Mr. Tapas Kumar Das's candidature. Mr. Sujoy Kumar Das argued that Mr. Tapas Kumar Das's offered land for the LPG showroom was not within the specified location as per the advertisement. While the advertisement mentioned "Haripal Block," it did not specify a particular village or "mouza" (revenue village unit). HPCL, upon receiving the complaint, cancelled Mr. Tapas Kumar Das's candidature, stating the offered land fell outside the intended location.

Court Battles and Reasoning:

Mr. Tapas Kumar Das challenged the cancellation in the High Court. The Single Judge ruled in his favor, considering the advertisement only mentioned "Haripal Block" and not a specific village. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, siding with HPCL's interpretation of the advertisement.

Supreme Court's Verdict:

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Mr. Tapas Kumar Das. The Court emphasized that the advertisement did not mention "Gram Panchayat" or "mouza" as a requirement. Additionally, the advertisement indicated "Rurban" as the market type, signifying the distributorship would cater to both rural and urban areas within the block. Since Mr. Tapas Kumar Das's offered land was located within the jurisdiction of Haripal Block, the Court deemed it satisfied the advertisement's location criteria.

The Supreme Court clarified that its decision was based solely on the wording of the advertisement and did not consider any undisclosed intentions HPCL might have had. The Court also refrained from commenting on any further requirements HPCL might have for the distributorship.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous communication in public advertisements. The Supreme Court's decision ensures a fair chance for candidates based on the information presented in the advertisement and prevents arbitrary disqualifications.

  West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973