TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the application submitted by the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 1 were found to be in order. Since both the Appellant and the Respondent No. 1 were held to be eligible from amongst the six (6) candidates, draw of lots was held on 11.05.2013 and Appellant was found successful candidate and was selected for verification of the documents. A letter of intent was issued to the Appellant on 24.02.2014 and on 03.06.2014 the approval was granted by the BPCL in favour of the Appellant for starting LPG distributorship at the notified place. 5. After a lapse of 4 years, the Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with the BPCL alleging that land offered by the Appellant was a Barga land and same cannot be considered. Subsequently application having been filed by the Appellant offering an alternate land, the Corporation allowed the prayer of the Appellant to construct the godown and showroom on the alternate land offered by the Appellant. 6. The Respondent No. 1 being a rival applicant for grant of distributorship, having participated in submitting the application and being unsuccessful in the draw of lots held way back in the year 2013 and being aggrieved by the decision of the Corporatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the aspect of delay and giving a complete go by for latches exhibited on the part of the writ Petitioner and extended the olive branch on surmises and conjectures and as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and consequently, writ petition which came to be dismissed by the Learned Single Judge has to be upheld. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has fairly submitted that in the light of the Appellant herein being successful in the allotment by draw of lots, had been issued with the letter of intent and the prayer for offering the alternate land was also accepted and having regard to the subsequent development namely the subsequent notification dated 30.04.2015 issued by the appropriate government directing the Oil Marketing Companies to provide flexibility in the selection guidelines by providing an "opportunity to offer alternate land in response to the advertisement" which clarified the position with regard to alternative land offered had been acted upon by the Corporation in the instant case and being satisfied with the bona fides of the applicant/Appellant, the Corporation had permitted the construction, and accordi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled. 11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ Petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re and when and how the delay arose. 12. It is apposite to take note of the dicta laid down by this Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. K. Thangappan and Anr. 2006:INSC:201 : (2006) 4 SCC 322 whereunder it has been held that the High Court may refuse to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction if there is negligence or omissions on the part of the applicant to assert his right. It has been further held thereunder: 6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers Under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [1968:INSC:312 : (1969) 1 SCC 185: AIR 1970 SC 769]. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably. 7. What w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the Petitioner and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It was stated that this Rule is premised on a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring, in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. It was pointed out that when writ jurisdiction is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third-party rights in the meantime is an important factor which also weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. 13. Reiterating the aspect of delay and latches would disentitle the discretionary relief being granted, this Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board and Ors. v. T.T. Murali Babu, 2014:INSC:88 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he acts of the Corporation and as such on this short ground itself the Appellant has to succeed. Secondly, another fact which has swayed in our mind to accept the plea of the Appellant herein is that, undisputedly the appropriate government had felt the need of permitting the Oil Marketing Companies to be more flexible and as such modification to the guidelines had been brought about on 15.04.2015 whereby the applicants were permitted to offer alternate land where the land initially offered by them was found deficient or not suitable or change of the land, subject to specifications as laid down in the advertisement being met. There being no stiff opposition or strong resistance to the alternate land offered by the Appellant herein not being as per the specifications indicated in the advertisement, we see no reason to substitute the court's view to that of the experts namely, the Corporation which has in its wisdom has exercised its discretion as is evident from the report filed in the form of affidavit by the territory manager (LPG)/ BPCL whereunder it has been stated: 13. On the basis of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to non-agricultural. In his application form the said Respondent N....