JUDGMENT :

A communication dated 07.10.2020 issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter BPCL) is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. By the said communication, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected which was made for appointment of the LPG dealership for the location of Khalabandha NC, Barpeta under the Open (W) Category.

2. To address the issues, it is necessary to put on record the facts of the case in brief.

3. The respondent BPCL had published an advertisement dated 25.05.2018 for appointment of LPG dealership in the aforesaid locality. It is the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 10.07.2018 she was informed about her qualification for online computerized draw of lots for selection and accordingly the petitioner was asked to be present on the said date fixed i.e. 27.07.2018. The petitioner claims that vide communication dated 28.07.2018 she was declared as a successful candidate subsequent to which, the petitioner had deposited Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand) only along with other documents. As regards the land document, the petitioner has admitted that those were of her father-in-law which were submitted. The area was inspected and was found to be Char Area and not suitable for construction of a Godown / Showroom and therefore the petitioner was directed to submit an undertaking showing the approach role to the said plot of land. The petitioner claims to have done so and had invested a sufficient amount for development of the land. Thereafter, the BPCL was still not satisfied with the arrangement and therefore informed the petitioner to provide other suitable land for construction of the Godown wherein LPG Cylinders would be transported by road. The petitioner claims to have submitted a plot of Miyadi Patta land which belongs to her father-in-law. However, the impugned letter dated 07.10.2020 was issued declaring the petitioner as an unsuccessful candidate.

4. On the other hand, it is the case of the BPCL that the petitioner could not produce the Registered Sale Deed / Gift Deed / Lease Deed / Mutation Certificate which were of a date on or before the last date of the submission of application i.e. 25.06.2018. The Corporation further claims that though an opportunity was given to the petitioner to provide suitable land documents, the same could not be given.

5. I have heard Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri HK Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel along with Shri SS Roy, learned counsel for the BPCL whereas the State is represented by Ms. M. Barman, learned Government Advocate, Assam. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel has also produced the records in original, which have been carefully examined.

6. Shri Das, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned letter is not sustainable in law as the same has been issued in gross violation of principles of natural justice. By drawing the attention of this Court to the impugned communication dated 07.10.2020, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that though the petitioner was declared to be a successful candidate in the online draw conducted on 27.07.2018, the Field Verification Committee (FVC) came to an erroneous finding regarding the ownership of a land offered. He further submits that though the impugned communication reflects that a further opportunity was given for production of proper documents on or before 25.06.2018 by issuing letter, the said letter was actually not delivered to the petitioner for which, grave prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel clarifies that he would confine his challenge only to the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as, the opportunity said to be granted was not an effective one at all.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays for a direction for remanding the matter to the BPCL for a re-consider