Introduction:

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr., addressed a crucial issue regarding the submission of a registered lease deed within the stipulated timeline for LPG distributorship selection. The division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur ruled that while Section 47 of the Registration Act allows a registered document to take effect from the date of execution, it cannot be used to override the requirement of submitting a registered lease deed within the prescribed cut-off date. The judgment upheld the single judge’s decision and emphasized that an executive authority like Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) must adhere strictly to the stipulations in its advertisements and selection manuals.

Arguments of the Appellant:

The appellant, Abhishek Agrawal, had applied for an LPG distributorship but was disqualified for submitting a lease deed that was registered after the stipulated cut-off date of May 24, 2023. Agrawal challenged this decision before the single judge, arguing that Section 47 of the Registration Act states that a registered document operates from the date of execution rather than the date of registration. He contended that since his lease deed was executed on March 23, 2023, its registration at a later date should not disqualify his application. He further argued that BPCL’s requirement of submitting a registered lease deed before the cut-off date was an unreasonable restriction that should not bar his eligibility.

Arguments of the Respondents:

BPCL countered that the ‘Manual for Selection of LPG Distributorship’ explicitly required candidates to submit a lease deed that was registered on or before the last date for submission of the application. It emphasized that this stipulation was a mandatory requirement, not a mere procedural formality. BPCL also pointed out that under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, a Power of Attorney was required to be compulsorily registered, and since Agrawal failed to comply with the prescribed deadline, his application was rightly rejected. The corporation contended that Section 47 of the Registration Act could not be stretched to nullify the requirement of submitting a registered lease deed before the stipulated date, as doing so would lead to arbitrariness and unfair advantage to certain candidates.

Court’s Judgment:

The Rajasthan High Court upheld BPCL’s position and dismissed the appeal, reiterating that the requirement of submitting a registered lease deed before the cut-off date was mandatory and could not be circumvented by invoking Section 47 of the Registration Act. The Court observed that while a lease deed may take effect from the date of execution upon registration, this legal principle operates only between the parties to the deed and does not override specific procedural requirements in selection processes. It relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, which held that an executive authority must rigorously adhere to the standards it sets for itself. The Court also cited Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, where the Privy Council ruled that when a power is given to do something in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone or not at all. The Court emphasized that the stipulations in BPCL’s Manual and advertisements were meant to ensure a fair and transparent selection process, and allowing deviations would set a wrong precedent. It further stated that mere raising of an arguable legal point was insufficient for the Court to exercise its inherent powers and interfere with the administrative decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the single judge’s order waswas upheld.