The Supreme Court dealt with the issue of delay and laches in filing a writ petition challenging the grant of LPG distributorship. The appellant had been successful in securing LPG distributorship after a draw of lots, and the respondent's writ petition was dismissed by the single judge on the ground of lack of locus standi. The appellate court reversed the decision, but the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the writ petition was filed after an unreasonable delay. The Court held that the respondent's failure to timely challenge the grant barred her from seeking any relief, as equity does not favor indolent litigants.

1. Advertisement and Application Process:

An advertisement was issued on 09.09.2012 by BPCL for LPG distributorship under GP Category at Jamalpur, District Burdwan. Both the appellant and the respondent were found eligible, and a draw of lots was held on 11.05.2013, where the appellant was selected. A letter of intent was issued to the appellant on 24.02.2014, and final approval for the distributorship was granted on 03.06.2014.

2. Challenge by Respondent No.1:

After four years, the respondent (a rival applicant) filed a complaint alleging that the land offered by the appellant was Barga land, which could not be considered. The appellant then offered alternate land, which BPCL accepted. The respondent, being unsuccessful in the draw, filed a writ petition in 2017, challenging the acceptance of alternate land. The writ petition was dismissed by the single judge, but the appellate court allowed the appeal.

3. Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s writ petition was barred by delay and laches. The Court emphasized that the writ petitioner should have filed her challenge promptly and that delay defeats equity. The Court upheld the appellant's LPG distributorship and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the respondent’s belated challenge could not be entertained after significant time had passed and alternate land had already been approved by BPCL.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India, Article 226: The discretionary power of the High Courts to issue writs.
• Relevant Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors: Clauses 7.1(vi) and (vii), as amended on 30.04.2015, allowed the offering of alternate land.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Delay and Laches in Writ Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court reiterated that extraordinary relief through writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be granted when a litigant has delayed asserting their rights without reasonable explanation.

2. Equity and Discretion: The Court held that the principle of laches is essential in the exercise of discretionary powers, especially when public interest or third-party rights have been impacted due to the delay.

3. Rule of Fair Play: The court noted that the "rules of the game" should not be altered mid-process, but in this case, amendments to the guidelines made on 15.04.2015 allowed flexibility for offering alternate land, which was permissible in the facts of the case.

Subject:

Writ Petition, Delay and Laches, LPG Distributorship, Equity in Law

LPG Distributorship, Writ Jurisdiction, Supreme Court Judgment, Article 226, BPCL, Alternate Land Approval