Authority: Calcutta High Court
Order Date: 15/09/2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners Rais Uddin Purkait (Petitioner No. 1) and his brother (Petitioner No. 2) filed WPA 8308 of 2025 against the Union of India and several respondents, chiefly Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL, Respondent No. 5).
- An advertisement dated 21 January 2014 announced the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (RGGLV) distributorship; the petitioners were selected under the “Open Category”.
- A Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued on 30 March 2015, subject to the outcome of pending litigation (WPA 7302 of 2015). The petitioner obtained NOCs from the Sub‑Inspector of Police, Gram Pradhan, and Joint Block Development Officer, Kulpi.
- Field verification on 26 June 2015 resulted in an Enquiry Report forwarded to the District Magistrate; the Additional District Magistrate granted final NOC on 24 July 2015.
- Petroleum and Explosive Safety Organization (PESO) conditionally approved the site layout on 5 May 2015, marking a significant stage of statutory scrutiny (though not a full licence).
- The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on 21 September 2023, upholding the petitioner’s selection.
- The petitioner obtained trade registration certificates for FY 2023‑24, 2024‑25 and 2025‑26 on 7 October 2023 and completed the godown and showroom thereafter.
- Inspection on 14 December 2023 revealed non‑conformity with the approved layout; a fresh plan was issued on 25 January 2024.
- The petitioner repeatedly sought PESO licence documents (letters dated 26 May 2024 and 28 May 2024) but HPCL could not explain the delay.
- In early 2024 the petitioner was diagnosed with schizophrenia, 70 % temporary disability, and joined a school as an Assistant Primary Teacher in February 2024.
- Applications dated 1 November 2024 and 20 December 2024 were filed with Respondent No. 4 requesting transfer of the LOI to the petitioner’s elder brother (Petitioner No. 2) and to his wife, citing nine‑and‑a‑half years of investment.
- Respondent No. 5, on 6 January 2025, asked for a re‑constitution proposal; on 19 February 2025 it issued the impugned order withdrawing the LOI and forfeiting Rs 20,000 deposited for field verification.
- The petitioner filed a representation on 3 March 2025 seeking withdrawal of the February 19 2025 letter and transfer of the LOI to his brother.
- Respondents argued that the LOI is non‑transferable, that the petitioner failed to obtain a PESO licence (rejected on 19 March 2024 for non‑compliance), and that only death or total permanent disability permits re‑constitution under the RGGLV Guidelines.
- They also contended non‑joinder of IOCL and BPCL, and that the matter is a commercial contract not covered by the RPWD Act.
- Respondent No. 6 (HPCL) highlighted that the PESO licence application was incomplete, that prior approval does not confer any right, and that the withdrawal order is appealable under Gas Cylinder Rules.
- The Court examined maintainability, the nature of the LOI, the applicability of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD Act), and the doctrine of reasonable accommodation.
- It held that while an LOI does not create a vested right, the authority must act fairly and consider the petitioner’s disability; the refusal to consider substitution was arbitrary and contrary to the RPWD Act.
Final Outcome
- The impugned letter dated 19 February 2025 withdrawing the LOI and forfeiting Rs 20,000 is quashed and set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner's request for substitution of his elder brother, taking into account his physical incapacitation and ensuring compliance with licensing requirements.
- The authority must pass a well‑reasoned order within eight weeks of communication of this judgment and communicate the decision within a week thereafter.
- Status quo regarding the approved premises is to be maintained pending the fresh decision.
- No order as to costs; urgent certified copy of the order to be supplied on priority.
Topics: LPG Distributorship, Disability Rights