CASE TITLE:
Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley & Ors
DATE OF ORDER:
18th April, 2024
BENCH:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri. Narasimha
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar
PARTIES:
Appellant: Mrinmoy Maity
Respondent: Chhanda Koley & Ors.
SUBJECT:
The case involved a disagreement about the authorization given for an LPG distributorship in Burdwan District’s Jamalpur. Respondent No. 1 and the appellant were both applicants, in the end, the appellant was chosen. Respondent No. 1 contested the decision, citing inappropriate land, in a writ case filed four years later. The primary question was whether respondent No. 1’s laches and delay made the writ court erroneous in considering the petition.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Constitution of India:
- Article 32:
It grants citizens the right to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights, ensuring quick remedies for rights violations.
- Article 226:
It empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for other purposes within their territorial jurisdiction.
OVERVIEW:
- The case was a disagreement about the authorization given to begin an LPG distribution business.
- Respondent No. 1 and the appellant were both determined to be eligible, with the appellant being chosen by lot.
- Respondent No. 1 expressed doubts regarding the appellant’s provided land’s fitness, which prompted the appellant to submit an alternative proposal that was approved.
- Respondent No. 1 objected to the approval in a writ petition.
- The Division Bench eventually granted the writ petition after the single judge had initially denied it.
- The respondent no.1’s laches and delays in responding to the writ petition were contested by the appellant.
- Citing a number of legal principles, the court highlighted how crucial it is to take laches and delays into account when approaching the court.
ISSUE RAISED:
- Was it appropriate for the writ court to consider a petition contesting the licence to operate an LPG distributorship?
- Did the respondent’s inability to challenge the permission and delay make it more difficult for them to ask the court for relief?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT:
- The appellant argued that the respondent’s lack of locus standing and the termination of the interim injunction should have resulted in the writ petition being dismissed.
- It was argued that before the temporary order of status quo was made and approved, the appellant had already filled out an application to accept other land, enabling them to build the godown and showroom on the alternate side.
- The appellant claimed that the Division Bench disregarded the facts in favour of adopting the respondent’s plea, failing to take into account the respondent’s laches and delay.
- The appellant highlighted the subsequent notification from the relevant government requesting flexibility in the selection rules. The corporation complied with this notification by accepting the alternative land that the appellant had supplied.
- The appellant contended that the respondent’s laches and delay warranted the setting aside of the contested ruling and the dismissal of the writ petition.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT:
- The respondent argued that the writ petition’s justifiable delay in being filled out shouldn’t have been a basis for dismissal.
- They argued that the appellant’s severe infringement of the guidelines should not have gone unnoticed.
- The respondent stressed how unfair it was to let the appellant resolve the land issue based on later amendments.
- They likened it to modifying a game’s rules in the middle, which they consider inappropriate, and comparing rules changed made after the selection process.
- They disagreed with the appellant’s argument in favour of the Division Bench’s ruling.
- They argued that the appellant should not have had the court impose restrictions on his or her behaviour because it went against the rules.
- The respondent urged that the appeal be dismissed, arguing that the division bench’s ruling was right.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The appellant’s approval for the LPG distributorship was revoked by the Division Bench’s ruling, which the court reversed.
- The court upheld the decision rendered by the Learned Single Judge. Initially, this judge most likely sustained the appellant’s approval, which the higher court then confirmed.
- The appellant’s approval for the LPG distributorship was affirmed by the court as being legitimate and legally sound.
- The appellant, who most likely filed an appeal in opposition to the Division Bench’s ruling, was successful. This indicated that the court had acknowledged the appellant’s arguments challenging the Division Bench’s decision.
- The fact that the court did not award costs shows that neither side was thought to have behaved dishonestly or in ill faith during the legal proceedings.
CONCLUSION:
The court concluded by upholding the idea that a case’s merits could be weakened by waiting to pursue legal action. It highlights the significance of prompt action, the court upheld the Single Judge’s ruling, concluding that the appellant’s acts and delay justified the writ petition’s dismissal. This reinforced the court’s position regarding the significance of effort in pursuing legal remedies.
