BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR. versus KAMAL ABROL AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 11-05-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHAGWAN DASS AND ANR. 
v. 
KAMAL ABROL AND ORS. 
MAY 11, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Public Distribution: 
Allotment of LPG dealership-Eligibility criterion of 're.sidence '-De 
C facto residence or de jure residence-:-Held, candidate was to fulfill eligibility 
criterion of residence, i.~ .. it should be de factn residence and not merely a 
connection with the place on account oFcandidate 's husband having some 
personal and ancestral property in the regfonconcerned-Administrative Law. 
.. D 
Words and.Phrases: 
'Residence '-Meaning of 
Respondent No. 3, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, invited ' 
applications ftom residents of Kangra District in Himachal Pradesh, for 
allotment of dealership/distributorship for Liquid Petroleum Gas. Various 
E candidates including appellants an<J respondent No. 1 applied. Respondent 
No. 1 wa~· iss~ed letter of intent: The appellants filed a suit, inter alia, for 
declaration that letter of intent issued in favour of respondent No. 1 was 
null and void, as she did not fulfil the criterion of 'resident' of Kangra 
District. The plea of respondent No. 1 was that her husband owned land 
F 
and~ ancestral property in Kangra, and, therefore, she fulfilled the 
eligibility. The trial court as also the first appellate court held that 
respondent No. 1 was not resident of Kangra District. However, the High 
Court in the second appeal held in favour of respondent No. 1. Aggrieved, 
the plaintiffs filed the present appeal. 
G 
Disposing of the appeal and remanding the matter to the High Court, 
the Court, 
HELD: 1.1: The word 'residence• is generally understood as referring 
to a person in connection with the place where he lives, and may be defined 
as one who resides in a place .or one who dwells in a place for a ~,_ 
H· 
~2 
( 
BHAGW AN DASS v. KAMAL ABROL 
343 
·".considerable period of time as distinguished from one who merely works A 
in a certain locality or comes casually for a visit and the place of work or 
the place Of casual visit are different from the place of 'residence'. 
' 
(349-F-GJ 
;-
1.2. There are two classifications of the meaning of the word 
'resid.ence'. First is in the form of permanent and temporary residence B 
and the second classification is based on de facto and de jure resid.ence. 
The de facto concept of residence can also be understood clearly by the 
meaning of the word 'residence' as given in Black's Law Dictionary, 8th 
Edition. It is given that the word residence means bodily presence as an 
inhabitant in a given place. Thus de facto residence is also to be understood c 
as the place where one regularly resides as different to the places where 
he is connected to by mere ancestral connections or political connections 
or connection by marriage. (349-G, H; 350-A) 
Sri Kishore Chandra Singh v. Babu Ganesh Prasad Bhagat and Ors., 
AIR (1954) SC 316; Mst. Jagir Kaur and Anr, v. Jaswant Singh, AIR (1963) D 
, SC 150 and Sarat Chandra Basu v. Bijoy Chand Mahatab Maharajadhiraj 
/ 
Bahadur of Burdwan, AIR (1937) PC 46, referred to. 
Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, AIR (1982) SC 3 and 
V.0.1. v. Dudh Nath Mishra and Ors., AIR (2000) SC 525, relied on. 
E 
Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, referred to. 
1.3. In the instant case, the necessary eligibility criterion requires 
the applicant to be a resident of Kangra district. The advertisement 
inviting the applications has not defined the same and hence it would be 
necessary to see the intention of the framers of the eligibi_lity criteria to F 
understand the true meaning or the sense for which the word 'resident' 
is used or as to why the criteria of resident is put as an eligibility criteria 
for allotment of LPG. The intention of the framers appears to be to provide. 
employment or source o~ earning for the residents of the Kangra district 
in the form of LPG dealership/distributorship. The eligibility criterion G 
requires the person to be a resident of Karigra district only in the actual 
sense and n-0t in any other sense. What is required to fulfill the eligibility 
criteria of the residence is that the person should be a de facto resident 
and not .to have mere connection with the place on account of her husband 
having some personal and ancestral property in Kangra. There i~ no 
-. finding recorded by the Court that the husband of respondent No.1 is H 
344 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A permanently residing at Kangra or has permanent a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.