IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the term 'resident' must be interpreted in the context of the purpose of the statute and the actual place of residence, as defined by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

SUMAN SHYAM, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal is filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 04.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 505/2021 and WP (C) No. 5277/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the selection of the appellant as a Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak (RGGLV distributor) for the area of Sudarshanpur Part-II and Part-III of Kalacherra Grant under Sudarshanpur-Kalacherra Gram Panchayat in the district of Hailakandi, Assam, and has directed the IOCL authorities to make allotment of the RGGLV distributorship by making a fresh draw of lots as per the categorization provided in the advertisement as well as the guidelines.

2. The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that pursuant to an advertisement issued by the IOCL authorities, the appellant as well as the respondent No. 6/writ petitioner had applied for RGGLV distributorship for the location of Sudarshanpur Part-II and Part-III of Kalacherra Grant under Sudarshanpur-Kalacherra Gram Panchayat in the district of Hailakandi, Assam. The appellant was selected in the draw of lots and, subsequently, after a round of litigation, which has been taken note of by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued in favour of the appellant on 25.11.2021. The respondent/writ petitioner preferred WP (C) No. 505/2021 challenging the selection of the appellant as the RGGLV distributor for the location Sudarshanpur Part-II and Part-III and subsequently filed WP (C) 5277/2021 challenging the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the appellant. Both the writ petitions have been allowed and disposed of vide the impugned judgment.

3. The respondent/writ petitioner has challenged the selection of the appellant as a RGGLV distributor for the location in question on the ground that the appellant is not a resident of Sudarshanpur Part-II and Part-III of Kalacherra Grant under Sudarshanpur-Kalacherra Gram Panchayat in the district of Hailakandi and as per Clause 3 of the advertisement, preference was to be given to an applicant residing within the Gram Panchayat area of the advertised location, but the respondent IOCL has illegally treated the appellant as a resident of the location in question whereas she is not a resident of the said locality. The learned Single Judge, having analyzed the documents submitted by the rival parties, has come to the following conclusions:

“18. In the instant case, there are a number of documents including those produced by the respondents which would demonstrate that the private respondent is not a resident of the concerned location. In the materials brought on record in these two cases, the following documents are to be taken into consideration:

(i) Certificate by the Sudarshanpur Kalacharra GP that neither the private respondent nor her husband are voters of Sudarshanpur Kalacharra GP as per the voter list of 2014 and they are not inhabitants of the said Gaon Panchayat.

(ii) Voter list of the No. 2 Rajeshwarpur Gaon Panchayat containing the name of the private respondent and her husband.

(iii) Voter list of 2014 for Hailakandi Legislative Assembly containing the name of the private respondent under Rajeshwarpur Part 5.

(iv) Standard Residence Certificate clearly states that the private respondent to be a resident of Rajeshwarpur 5.

(v) Verification report dated 18.04.2015 issued by the Circle Officer whereby a drastic change has been made in stating the private respondent to be a voter of Rajeshwarpur but residing in village Sudarshanpur Part III from the year 2005 in the rented house as her husband is a school teacher of Sudarshanpur Madrassa. The said verification report further states that the private respondent has purchased land in Sudarshanpur Part II vide registered sale deed dated 22.01.2014.

(vi) Further, verification report dated 27.11.2015 stating that on 14.10.2015 a verification was made and it was found that the private r