Read Full Judgment: Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley
In the Supreme Court case of Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others, the central issue revolved around the validity of a writ petition challenging the approval granted to Mrinmoy Maity for starting an LPG distributorship in Jamalpur, District Burdwan. The case stemmed from an advertisement issued in 2012 inviting applications for distributorship, which both Maity and Koley applied for. Maity was ultimately selected through a draw of lots and granted approval for distributorship in 2014. However, four years later, Koley filed a complaint alleging that the land offered by Maity was unsuitable. Maity subsequently offered alternate land, which was accepted by the Corporation.
Koley, dissatisfied with Maity’s approval, filed a writ petition in 2017, challenging the decision. Initially, the petition was dismissed by a Single Judge, citing lack of locus standi. However, an appellate court reversed this decision, setting aside Maity’s approval due to alleged violations of selection guidelines. Maity appealed this decision.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Maity argued that the delay in filing the writ petition and Koley’s participation in the selection process should disqualify her petition. Additionally, Maity highlighted the Corporation’s acceptance of the alternate land and subsequent construction, which he claimed were done in accordance with guidelines and with no favoritism.
Koley countered, asserting that violations of guidelines and the inherent defect in Maity’s land offering warranted the rejection of his distributorship approval, regardless of the delay in filing the petition.
The Supreme Court deliberated on the principles of delay and laches, emphasizing that delay in seeking judicial relief could prejudice opposing parties and disrupt settled matters. It cited various precedents to support its stance on the importance of timely petitioning.
Ultimately, the Court found in favor of Maity, reinstating the decision of the Single Judge and dismissing Koley’s writ petition. It reasoned that Koley’s delay in challenging Maity’s approval, coupled with the Corporation’s acceptance of alternate land, justified upholding Maity’s distributorship. The Court also noted that the Corporation’s actions were consistent with modified guidelines allowing for flexibility in land offerings.
Therefore, the Supreme Court’s judgment upheld Maity’s distributorship approval and dismissed Koley’s writ petition, reinstating the decision of the Single Judge.
