The Supreme Court held that as the advertisement and application form explicitly mandated strict adherence to declared categories without scope for rectification. The Court emphasized judicial restraint in contractual matters, underscoring that public sector undertakings must follow prescribed procedures to avoid arbitrariness. The doctrine of public trust was reiterated, highlighting the State’s duty to manage natural resources transparently. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order for lacking legal basis and exceeding writ jurisdiction.
-
Facts of The Case:
The case arose from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) issuing an advertisement in November 2018 for the selection of a retail outlet dealership, categorizing applicants into Group 1 (those possessing suitable land) and Group 2 (those with a firm offer for land). The respondent, P. Soundarya, mistakenly applied under Group 2 despite having land, and later sought rectification through multiple representations to BPCL. When her requests were rejected, she filed Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to BPCL to consider her representations. BPCL rejected her claim, citing the online application’s irrevocability. The respondent then filed successive writ petitions, culminating in the High Court directing BPCL to consider her application under Group 1, reasoning that BPCL should assist applicants, especially from reserved categories. BPCL appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court overstepped its writ jurisdiction by altering contractual terms. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of BPCL, holding that the respondent’s error in declaring her group was binding, and the High Court’s intervention was unjustified. The Court emphasized strict adherence to procedural rules in public sector contracts and discouraged judicial interference in such matters unless arbitrariness or illegality was demonstrated. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s order was set aside.
-
Procedural History:
The case originated when the respondent, P. Soundarya, filed Writ Petition No. 2965 of 2021 before the Madras High Court after BPCL rejected her request to correct her application from Group 2 to Group 1. The High Court disposed of the petition with a direction to BPCL to consider her representations. Unsatisfied with BPCL’s subsequent rejection, she filed Writ Petition No. 13355 of 2021, which was disposed of with a direction to consider her application under Group II if the selected candidate (S. Rasan) was found ineligible. When BPCL invited her for a draw of lots under Group II, she filed Writ Petition No. 3641 of 2023, seeking consideration under Group I. The Single Judge allowed her plea, which was upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 866 of 2023. BPCL then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 7845 of 2024), which was converted into a civil appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s orders and holding that the respondent’s application could not be reclassified after submission, as per BPCL’s advertised guidelines. The Court emphasized judicial restraint in contractual matters and dismissed the respondent’s claims, directing BPCL to proceed with the allotment process as per the original terms.
-
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations while allowing BPCL’s appeal. It emphasized that courts must exercise restraint in contractual matters involving public sector undertakings, unless there is clear arbitrariness or violation of constitutional principles. The Court noted that BPCL’s advertisement and application process explicitly prohibited changes to the declared group category after submission, and the respondent’s error in initially applying under Group 2 was binding. It observed that the High Court had overstepped its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 by directing BPCL to consider the respondent under Group 1, as this amounted to rewriting contractual terms.
The Court reaffirmed the doctrine of public trust, stressing that natural resources like petroleum must be allocated through transparent and fair procedures without judicial interference in policy matters. It criticized the respondent’s approach of filing multiple writ petitions as an abuse of process, particularly since she was aware of the irrevocable nature of her application. The judgment underscored that sympathy cannot override established rules in commercial matters, and public sector undertakings must be allowed to function with certainty in their contractual dealings. The Court concluded that the High Court’s intervention was unjustified and set a dangerous precedent for similar cases.
-
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed BPCL’s appeal and set aside the judgments of the Madras High Court, holding that the respondent’s application must be considered strictly as per the original Group 2 declaration. The Court ruled that BPCL’s advertised terms were clear and binding, leaving no scope for post-application modifications. It emphasized that judicial intervention in contractual matters of public sector undertakings is permissible only in cases of patent arbitrariness or illegality, neither of which existed here. The Court directed BPCL to proceed with the dealership allotment process in accordance with its original guidelines, without considering the respondent’s belated request for reclassification. Critically, the judgment reaffirmed that contractual terms governing public resource allocation must be applied uniformly to maintain institutional integrity, and that misplaced sympathy cannot justify rewriting agreed procedures. The respondent’s multiple writ petitions were disapproved as an improper attempt to gain advantages contrary to established rules. No costs were awarded.
-
Case Details:
Case Title: The General Manager, Business Network Planning (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr. vs. P. Soundarya Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7845 of 2024) Citation: 2025 INSC 426 (Non-Reportable) Date of Judgment: 2nd April 2025 Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol AND Justice Manmohan
Download The Judgement