The General Manager, Business Network Planning Retail, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. P. Soundarya
Background
The respondent applied for a BPCL retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership reserved for Scheduled Caste applicants but mistakenly classified herself as "Group 2" (having only a firm offer to acquire land) instead of "Group 1" (already owning suitable land), which affected her priority in the selection process. When BPCL did not correct this despite her repeated representations, she went to the Madras High Court, which, sympathetic to her situation, directed BPCL to consider her application under Group 1. BPCL appealed to the Supreme Court against this direction.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that courts must exercise considerable restraint when reviewing contractual/tender decisions of government bodies, interfering only where there is clear arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality, not merely because a result seems harsh. It found that the advertisement and application form required specific supporting documents to establish which group an applicant fell into, so an incorrect group selection was not a trivial clerical slip, and the respondent, who was the author of her own error and understood the process, could not later demand reclassification. The Court set aside the High Court's order, held that BPCL was entitled to proceed strictly per its published rules, and criticised the respondent's repeated litigation as unjustified, noting it had held up establishment of the petrol pump for seven years.
Lesson Learnt
Courts will generally not rewrite the outcome of a competitive public process merely on sympathetic grounds; applicants are bound by the category or information they themselves declare in a form, especially where the rules make clear that eligibility is decided strictly on the information submitted.