Jagwant Kaur v. Union of India
Background
The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the Indian Oil Corporation's allotment of an LPG distributorship at Balachaur to another applicant (respondent no. 4), who had won the distributorship through a draw of lots. The appellant argued the winning applicant should have been disqualified because the land she initially offered for the distributorship was the same parcel offered by another applicant, and she was later allowed to substitute a different piece of land that she did not even possess at the time of her original application.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's factual finding that the two applicants' land parcels, though leased from the same family/lessor holding a larger contiguous property, were in fact distinct and separately registered parcels, confirmed by revenue records and officials. There was therefore no real overlap or disqualifying defect. The later substitution of an alternate parcel was validly accepted by the Corporation under its guidelines because the original lessor had given contradictory, shifting affidavits, and the guidelines permit substituting land found deficient after application, so long as the new land meets all requirements, which it did here.
Lesson Learnt
In competitive public allotments, courts look closely at the actual underlying documentation (land records, revenue entries, affidavits) rather than surface-level coincidences, such as two applicants using land from the same family, before concluding that an award was improperly made.