Delayed writ petition challenging LPG distributorship approval dismissed as delay defeats equity claims

The SC set aside the HC Division Bench order that had entertained a delayed writ petition challenging LPG distributorship approval. The Court held that delay defeats equity and applicants who sleep over their rights should not be granted extraordinary relief. The HC erred in exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 despite significant delay and laches by the petitioner. Since there was no strong opposition to the alternate land offered and the Corporation had exercised proper discretion through expert evaluation, the Court refused to substitute judicial view for administrative expertise. The appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the writ court in entertaining the writ petition.
2. Locus standi of the Respondent No. 1.
3. Delay and latches in filing the writ petition.
4. Validity of the alternate land offered by the Appellant.

Summary:

1. Justification of the writ court in entertaining the writ petition:
The core issue was whether the writ court was justified in entertaining the writ petition challenging the approval granted to the Appellant for starting LPG distributorship at Jamalpur, District Burdwan. The appellate court had allowed the appeal on the grounds that the successful applicant had not offered unencumbered land for construction, the land offered was in contravention of guidelines, and the amendment to the guidelines could not be applied retrospectively.

2. Locus standi of the Respondent No. 1:
The Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had no locus standi as she had participated in the selection process and was unsuccessful. This dismissal was contested, but the Supreme Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the writ Petitioner should have been non-suited on the ground of delay and latches.

3. Delay and latches in filing the writ petition:
The Supreme Court underscored that the writ Petitioner approached the court belatedly, which should have led to the dismissal of the writ petition. The Court reiterated that delay defeats equity and emphasized that extraordinary relief should not be granted to those who sleep over their rights. The Court cited precedents to support the principle that inordinate delay in invoking writ jurisdiction is a valid ground for dismissal.

4. Validity of the alternate land offered by the Appellant:
The Appellant had initially offered Barga land, which was later substituted with alternate land. The Corporation accepted this alternate land based on subsequent guidelines allowing flexibility. The Supreme Court found no reason to substitute the Corporation's discretion, as the alternate land met the specifications and was found suitable for construction.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Learned Division Bench and restored the order of the Learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition on the grounds of delay and latches and upheld the Appellant's right to the LPG distributorship. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

---