SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
RAJIB KAKATY S/O GANESH CH. KAKATY – Petitioner
Versus
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4856 of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: B.P. BORAH
For the Respondents: M.K. CHOUDHURY, P. BHARADWAJ

The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's application for a retail outlet dealership due to failure to meet land suitability criteria as per the Brochure guidelines.

Headnote:(A) Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets - Clause 4(v) and Note 2 - Rejection of application for retail outlet dealership - Petitioner’s application was rejected due to non-compliance with land suitability criteria - The petitioner was relegated to Group-3 after initial rejection and subsequently selected through draw of lots - However, the final submission of land documents was not in accordance with the stipulated requirements, leading to rejection of candidature. (Paras 10, 11, 20, 22)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of judicial review - The court found no merit in the writ petition as the rejection was in line with the established guidelines and criteria set forth in the Brochure. (Paras 21, 22)

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for award of retail outlet dealership at Borhat in the district of Charaideo under the open category which was advertised on 25.11.2018. The legality of the said rejection is being questioned in the instant proceedings on the ground that the same is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Brochure, for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets dated 24.11.2024 as well as the communications which were also issued from time to time by the concerned respondent authorities. To ascertain the legality and the validity of the impugned communication dated 09.08.2023, it is relevant to take note of the facts in brief which are narrated infra.

3. The respondent Corporation in order to appoint retail outlet dealers in 462 rural locations had issued an advertisement on 25.11.2018. In the instant proceedings, this Court is concerned with the location of Borhat in the district of Charaideo which is at S. No. 365 of the advertisement under the open category. The petitioner who was interested submitted his application on 24.12.2018 and applied it in the Group-1 category. In the said application, the petitioner offered a plot of land admeasuring 625 square meters covered by Dag No. 296 of PP No. 120 situated at village-Chutiakari, P.O. Borhat and in the district of Charaideo, Assam.

4. At this stage, it is very relevant to take note of the manner in which the Respondent Corporation categorizes the applications. This aspect of the matter could be seen in Clause 4(v) of the Brochure. The applicants as per the Brochure are classified into three groups based upon the land offered or the land not offered by them in the application form. Group-1 are those applicants who have a suitable plot of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. Group-2 are those applicants having a firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

5. The applicants in Group-3 are those who have not offered land in the application. For the purpose of processing these applications in the three categories above mentioned, it is relevant to mention that applications under Group-3 would be processed/ advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant gets selected under Group-1 and Group-2.

6. This Court finds it very relevant to take note of a portion of Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure which is reproduced herein under:

    “4. (v) ...........In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not sutabie/not meeting requirements, then these applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location/stretch, within a per of 3 months from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.”

7. From the above quoted portion of Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure, it would be seen that in case land offered by all applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 is not found suitable/not meeting the requirements, then these applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 along with the applicants under Group-3 (who did not offer land along with the applications) would be advised by the OMC to provide suitable land in the advertised location/stretch within a period of three months from the date of i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top