JUDGMENT :

1. Both the writ petitions are connected and have been filed by the same petitioner in connection with appointment of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGVL). In fact, the second writ petition is an off-shoot of the first and accordingly both of the writ petitions were analogously heard and are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

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

3. The respondent -Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) had published an advertisement dated 29.12.2013 in the newspaper "Dainik Jugashankha" for selection and appointment of RGGVL. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner, who claims to be eligible had submitted his candidature along with other candidates. The petitioner had claimed that he is a permanent resident of village Sudarshanpur Part 2 of Hailkandi district. The petitioner claims to have been found qualified for draw of lots which was scheduled on 06.11.2014. However, the petitioner alleges that in violation of the procedure, the respondent no. 5 was selected which was conveyed vide letter dated 07.11.2014. The petitioner alleges that the said respondent no. 5 was a resident of village Rajayeswapur Part 5, Muktacharra which is outside the Sudarshanpur Kalacharra Gaon Panchayat area. The principal ground of challenge is that the draw of lots is done in a chronological manner where preference is given to the candidates who are from the same Gaon Panchayat village whereas the respondent no. 5 herein is from a different village and therefore, the respondent no. 5 should not have come within the zone of consideration.

4. The petitioner contends that being aggrieved with the issuance of the dealership to the respondent no. 5, he had lodged a complaint before the respondent no. 3 but nothing was communicated to him regarding the outcome of the same. The petitioner claims that he got some information that there was some change in the policy of the Government for which, the selection process was to be conducted afresh. However, constructions were carried out by the respondent no. 5, on an enquiry the petitioner could learn that such construction was done on the strength of an order dated 24.01.2020 passed by this Court in WP(C)/6315/2017 and WA No. 281/2018 which was disposed of vide order dated 19.08.2019. The petitioner contends that in the writ petition instituted by the respondent no. 5, the residential status of the respondent no. 5 was not the issue and there was no direction in that regard as such.

5. The petitioner alleges that during the pendency of the first writ petition, an RTI application of the petitioner was responded to by the IOCL by providing him a copy of the Letter of Intent dated 25.11.2021 in favour of the respondent no. 6 [who is the respondent no. 5 in WP(C)/505/2021]. The petitioner has contended that on a subsequent date, another document was sought to be introduced regarding the residential status of the private respondent. The petitioner contends that such attempt will not improve the case of the private respondent as the eligibility has to be fulfilled as on the date of the advertisement.

6. On the other hand, the IOCL has contended that the selection has been done by following the due process of law and giving all the eligible parties, equal opportunities in which transparency and fairness have been maintained. It is further averred that the tender conditions being those introduced by the Corporation, its interpretation should be left best to the Corporation. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of any malafidein the decision making process and therefore, there is hardly any scope for interference by this Court. The private respondent has opposed the writ petition by terming the challenge to be without any basis.

7. I have heard Shri AR Bhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri P. Bhardwaj, learned Standing Counsel, IOCL whereas the State is represented by Shri J. Handique,