IMPORTANT POINT
Residency requirements as per the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships of October 2017 must be met for LPG Distributorship appointments, and appointments can be quashed based on insufficient proof of residency.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, J.

1. Heard Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No. 325/2023 as well as for the respondent No. 4 in WA No. 262/2023 and Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in WA No. 262/2023 as well as for the respondent No. 4 in WA No. 325/2023. Also heard Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent IOCL.

2. These two intra-Court writ appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 13.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 8669/2019 and WP (C) No. 5787/2019. The above referred two writ petitions were preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner Dayal Ch. Paul before the learned Single Bench.

3. The brief facts of the cases are that on 12.06.2018, a joint advertisement was published in a newspaper, namely, “Axomiya Pratidin” for appointment of LPG Distributorship in different places within the State of Assam by 3(three) Petroleum Companies. The said advertisement was in relation to 33 locations wherein applications were invited for appointment of LPG Distributorship from the interested persons.

In the above referred writ petitions, the appellant Dayal Ch. Paul has questioned the appointment of appellant Dipti Das as dealer of LPG Distributorship at the location Jamlai, Village-Kalyanpur under Mahakuma Nagarbera, Part Chamria, within the District of Kamrup.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant Dayal Ch. Paul (WA No. 325/2023) and appellant Dipti Das (WA No. 262/2023) along with several other candidates had applied for Distributorship of the above referred location.

5. As per the procedure, particularly, Clause 11.6 of the Unified Guidelines for Selection of LPG Distributorships of October 2017 (in short “the Guidelines of October 2017”) inter-se priority was to be given in the draw of lots to the eligible candidates and three priority lists were to be prepared.

The first priority was to be given to the eligible candidates residing in the concerned Gram Panchayat of the advertised location; the second priority was to be given to the eligible candidates residing in the concerned Revenue Sub-Division of the advertised location and the third priority was to be given to the eligible candidates not residing in the concerned Gram Panchayat or in the concerned Revenue Sub-Division of the advertised location.

6. After the selection process, the respondent IOCL issued a notice for appointment of LPG Distributorship for the location in question and appointed the appellant Dipti Das as the dealer.

7. Being aggrieved with the same, the appellant Dayal Ch. Paul has preferred WP (C) No. 5787/2019 claiming that the appellant Dipti Das is not the resident of the concerned Gram Panchayat area of the advertised location and therefore, her selection is liable to be set aside. He also prayed that he be appointed as the Distributor of the LPG Distributorship in question.

8. During pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent IOCL issued the Letter of Intent dated 11.03.2019 in favour of the appellant Dipti Das and therefore, the appellant Dayal Ch. Paul filed another writ petition, being WP (C) No. 8669/2019 challenging the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the appellant Dipti Das.

9. The learned Single Judge has disposed of both the writ petitions while setting aside the selection/appointment of the appellant Dipti Das as the dealer of the LPG Distributorship in question vide impugned judgment dated 13.06.2023. However, the learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant Dayal Ch. Paul to issue a direction for appointing him as the dealer of the LPG Distributorship in question.

10. The appellant Dayal Ch. Paul has filed WA No. 325/2023, being aggrieved with the rejection of his prayer for appointment/selection as the distributor for LPG Distributorship in question. While rejecting the aforesaid prayer of the appellant/petitioner Dayal Ch. Paul, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:

“26. The learned counsel for the petition