The Rajasthan High Court, recently ruled on a case concerning the allotment of LPG distributorship, emphasizing that the retrospective effect of a registered document under Section 47 of the Registration Act cannot override procedural requirements. The Jaipur division bench, comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur made it clear that while a registered lease deed operates from the date of execution, it cannot be used to bypass a stipulated deadline for submission of documents.

The legal question arose when a candidate for LPG distributorship was denied consideration due to his failure to submit a registered lease deed within the timeframe prescribed in the selection manual and advertisement.

The appellant, contesting a single judge’s earlier decision, argued that as per Section 47 of the Registration Act, a lease deed, though registered belatedly; should be deemed effective from its execution date.The Section 47 states that a registered document takes effect from the date on which it would have originally operated if registration were not required.

However, the court reiterated that this principle applies between the concerned parties and in certain third-party situations but cannot be stretched to negate the necessity of submitting a lease deed that had already been registered by the deadline.

The appellant had initially challenged a notice dated December 28, 2023, which required him to provide a registered Power of Attorney by May 24, 2023. Further, he contested the February 6, 2024, order that disqualified him due to the late registration of his lease deed, executed on March 23, 2023, but registered after the cut-off date of May 24, 2023.

BPCL defended its decision, stating that per the 'Manual for Selection of LPG Distributorship,' all land-related documents had to be registered before the last date for application submission. Moreover, BPCL contended that a Power of Attorney required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and that a lease deed registered post-deadline was invalid for selection purposes.

While the single judge did not accept BPCL’s argument regarding the necessity of registering a Power of Attorney, the judge upheld that a lease deed remains ineffective until registration, and its later registration does not circumvent the requirement to submit it on time. The division bench concurred, asserting that procedural mandates in public selection processes must be strictly adhered to.

While presenting arguments, Supreme Court’s ruling in Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority was cited. Referring to which the bench reiterated, “An executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.” Additionally, referencing the Privy Council's decision in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, the court underscored, “Where power is given to do a thing in a certain way, it had to be done in that way only, or not at all, and other methods of performance were forbidden.”

In conclusion, the court upheld that BPCL’s adherence to selection guidelines was justified and in public interest, the court refused to interfere with the single judge’s ruling. The appeal was dismissed, with the bench emphasizing that raising an arguable point does not warrant the court’s inherent powers to be exercised arbitrarily.

Case Title: Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr.

Advocates For Appellants: Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Aniket Tater

Advocate For Respondents: Ms. Abhilasha Bora