The decision-making process should be fair, legitimate, and without any affection or aversion. The action of the respondent IOCL was found to be tainted with arbitrariness and mala-fide, violating the rules of natural justice and abusing its power.

JUDGMENT :

ROBIN PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. O. Duggong, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Ratan, learned CGC appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. D.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 5 and Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

2. This Writ Proceeding, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is being instituted by the petitioner, namely, Shri Don Pertin with the following prayers:

(i) to quash and set aside recommendation/report of Land Evaluation Committee, based on self verification dated 22.03.2019 for RO dealership of Dambuk.

(ii) to quash and set aside the order dated 30.03.3019, passed by the head of Division Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through e-mail Ref: 15453871642034.

(iii) to issue direction to the respondents to re-verify the land of the petitioner for RO dealership at Dambuk.

(iv) or in alternative, to issue direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 24.04.2019 and 20/05/2019 filed by him within a specified time period.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present writ petition is adumbrated herein-below:

“Pursuant to an advertisement, dated 25.11.2018, published in the Newspaper for appointment of regular/rural retail outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership for various placed in Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner on 21.12.2018 applied for Retail Outlet (RO) Dealership at Dambuk, under ST (Scheduled Tribe) Category on NH 13, between ADC Office, Dambuk and Bridge over river Sinekorong in Lower Dibang Valley District.

Thereafter the petitioner executed a land lease agreement on 21.12.2018, along with his brother who possesses a plot of land in the Dambuk area, for the purpose of RO dealership, and subsequently after going through all the formalities, lottery was drawn on 29.01.2019, for selection of RO dealership by the IOCL officials at Tinsukia and the petitioner was selected, as informed by the Head of Divisional Office, IOCL.

Thereafter, on 02.03.2019, an e-mail was sent to him by the Head of Divisional Office, IOCL informing that a Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) will be visiting the proposed site for inspection on 12.03.2019. But, on that day the LEC did not turn up. Later on, without any intimation, to the petitioner, the LEC had unilaterally visited the land of the petitioner and the petitioner came to know about the same from a third person. Thereafter, on 30.03.2019, the petitioner received another e-mail, wherein it was stated that on 12.03.2019, the LEC visited the site offered by the petitioner and found the same to be not meeting the required norms and by citing this reason, the selection of the petitioner for RO dealership was cancelled. Thereafter, on 29.04.2019 he had received another communication wherein it is stated that rejection of his candidature was due to verification dated 22.04.2019. It is also stated that as per guidelines it is mandatory for all the parties to remain present physically during such verification. And violating its own guidelines, the IOCL had cancelled his selection.”

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned rejected order, dated 30.03.2019, the petitioner has approached this Court, by filing the present Writ Petition, on the ground that the unilateral verification of the land of the petitioner by the respondents, and subsequent cancellation of his selection, is an outcome of arbitrary and ill informed decision of the respondents which resulted in violation of his legal as well as fundamental right.

5. The respondent No. 2 to 5 have submitted their affidavit in opposition denying the assertions made in the petition. It is stated that -due to pre occupation with other official works, the LEC conducted land evaluation on 22.03.2019, in presence of the petitioner and a group photograph was taken on the same date which clearly show the presence of the petitioner. It is also stated that the land offered by the petitioner is found to be not meeting the requirement, and therefo