VIRENDER CHAUDHARY versus BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION &ORS.

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 07-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 713 
VIRENDER CHAUDHARY 
A 
~ 
v. 
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION &·ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 6567-69 «if 2008) 
. 
·~ 
\. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2008 
B 
[s'.s. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.) 
~ 
.< 
• 
• 
~ 
' 
y 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226: 
Grant of LPG distributorship - Eligibility - Cancellation c 
of empanelment of 5th respondent on ground of his 
involvement in a criminal case and allotment in favour of 
appellant -
Challenged by respondent No.5 without 
challenging allotment in favour of appellant - Dismissed by 
High Court - Second Writ Petition filed after lapse of about 
D 
two years allowed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: 
~ -,. 
High Court failed to take into consideration the effect of delay 
and latches on the part of respondent No.~ in approaching 
High Court - A writ remedy is discretionary remedy - Delay 
and latches are relevant factors taken into consideration by E 
the Courts while exercising writ jurisdiction - Superior Courts 
apply principle of equity while granting limited relief/no relief 
in favour of applicant in a case of this nature - High Court 
erred in not taking into consideration relevant facts in proper 
perspective -
Hence, impugned judgment cannot be 
F 
'"' 
sustained and set aside - Writ Jurisdiction - Exercise of -
-· 
Delay and latches - Effect of. 
Principle of acquiescence and waiver in a case involving 
equity and justice - Applicability of, in the context of doctrine 
of estoppel. 
G 
Respondent No.1, Bharat Petroleum Corporation 
issued an advertisement inviting application for grant of 
..... 
LPG distributorship. In terms of the advertisement, a 
713 
H 
714 
SUPREME COLJ.RT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 ~ .. C.R. 
A person convic~ed, for any offence involving moral 
~urpitud,e/ecoi:w,o.mic offence a_nd a person against whom 
charges had been. framed by the Coui:t, was ineligible for 
grant' of ~ist~ibutorship. Interviews were held for the 
cand,idates ·on or abou~ 25/2~.1.1.2003. Respondent No.5 
B was found to be the most suitable candidate by\the 
Selection Committe,e. The name of appellant ~lso figured 
in the select list. Empanelment of the 5th respondent was, 
however, cancelled. as he was found involved in a criminal 
case. Respondent No.5 filed a writ petition questioning 
C the cancellatior.i of his empanelment. But he did not 
challenge the allotment made in favour of the appellant. 
The.writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the High 
Court. Respondent No.5 filed second writ petition after a 
lapse of two years in October 2006, which was allowed 
by the. High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
C?. 
. 
.~ 
Appellant contended that although in the 
advertisement issued for grant of allotment of the LPG 
dealership, lodging of a first info~mation report or framing 
of charge were not stated to be the relevant factors for 
E the purpose of disqualifying a candidate, in all fairness, 
the 5th respondent should have mentioned thereabout in 
his application for grant of LPG dealership. In, any event, 
as the writ petition suffered from delay and latches, the 
F 
impugned order should be set aside. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is during the field investigation, the 
officials of respondent No.1 came to learn about the fact 
that tWo first information reports had been lodged against 
G respondent No.5 and in one of them he had also been 
charge-sheeted. It is on that basis, a decision was taken 
to cancel the empanelment of, the 5th respondent on or . 
about 10th March, 2004. Field investigation in respect of 
the appellant, however, proceeded. Letter of intent had 
H been. issued in his favour on 6.5,2004. It is difficult to. 
\-
:..-
..____ 
y ...
l 
1: ,. 
. 
I-
~·· 
VIRENDER CHAUDHARY v. BHARAT PETROLEUM 
715 
CORPORATION & ORS. 
comprehend that the 5th respondent was not awe-re of A 
the issuance of the letter of intent to the appellant. [Para. 
13] [720-F, G, H; 721-A] 
1.2. Though the· advertisement published in 
'Navbharat Times' mentioned 'framing of charge-in a 
criminal case' as a disqualification, the advertisement B 
published in 'The Tribune' and the 'Dainik Tribune' 
framing of charge in a criminal case was not mentioned 
as a disqualification. In the application form also, the 
applicant was not required to furnish any information 
regarding any framing of charge in a criminal case. It was 
C 
neither necessary nor possible for the 5th respondent to 
disclose the fact that two first information reports had 
been l

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