JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOC), appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel for respondent no. 5.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner responded to the advertisement issued by the IOC, through online, on 25.11.2018, for Retail Outlet Dealership, in the District of Lohit. Acting upon the application submitted by the petitioner, the IOCL, through communication dated 19.01.2019, informed the petitioner that he was found qualified for the dealership and he should be personally present along with a photo identity card, issued by any Government Department on 01.02.2019, at 10:00 Hrs, in the address specified for draw of lots. Subsequently, vide communication dated 02.02.2019, the IOCL informed the petitioner that he was declared to be a successful candidate in the draw of lots, which was conducted on 01.02.2019, for retailing outlet dealership, in the location concerned. He was, therefore, requested to remit Rs. 30,000/- towards Initial Security Deposit by online within 10 days from date of the communication and also to submit the set of documents specified in the said communication.

3. Pursuant to the said communication, the petitioner again on 01.03.2019, was informed that the Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) will be visiting the site offered by the petitioner on the location concerned for inspection on 11.03.2019 and therefore, he was required to be personally present on that day along with all relevant land documents. The petitioner, accordingly, was present on the site on the date fixed and the Land Evaluation Committee visited the spot. However, to the surprise of the petitioner, the IOCL, vide communication, dated 04.04.2019, informed him that the Land Evaluation Committee on visiting the site offered by the petitioner on 11.03.2019, found the same to be not meeting the required norms. Accordingly, the offer of the petitioner was found to be not suitable. The petitioner was however informed that his candidature may be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per guidelines. It may be stated herein that the candidature of the petitioner was for Group-1 applicants. Aggrieved with the said communication, the petitioner sent a number of e-mails to the IOCL, which however, was not responded to by them. As such, the petitioner having no alternative is before this Court.

4. Mr. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as was informed to the petitioner, he was present on his plot of land when the Land Evaluation Committee came to visit the site on 11.03.2019. The petitioner all along was under the impression that he will be selected and be given the Retail Outlet Dealership by the IOC. However, vide the impugned notification, dated 04.04.2019, the petitioner was found to be ineligible for being awarded the dealership. He submits that no reason has been assigned by the IOCL as to why his application was rejected despite the petitioner having written to the IOCL on many occasions via e-mail. He submits that the respondent IOCL has now selected the respondent no. 5 for giving the Retail Outlet Dealership. He therefore, submits that the impugned decision of the respondent authorities concerned is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

5. Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, IOCL, on the other hand submits that the guidelines and modalities for granting Retail Outlets is given in the brochure prepared by the IOC. He submits that regular retail outlets can be given on Highways (National or State) within the Municipal limits of a town, under Clause-1 of the brochure. Clause-14 of the brochure provides for the selection procedure. The same provides that there shall be draw of lots amongst eligible candidates depending upon the type of Retail Outlet site as defined in Clause-3. Clause-14 (E) (xii) of the brochure provid