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
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:
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
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.
Applicants must meet the eligibility criteria for the respective groups and submit necessary documents as per the requirement of the group applied for.
A notarized lease deed is legally ineffective; eligibility for a dealership requires a registered deed on the application date, according to statutory guidelines.
An applicant for a dealership must satisfy eligibility criteria by holding a registered lease at the time of application; unregistered lease deeds are legally ineffective.
Eligibility for dealership required a valid registered lease deed by application date; unregistered or notarized documents are legally insufficient.
The conformity letter from an advocate plays a crucial role in determining the eligibility of the offered land and the applicant's title to it, and the rejection based solely on the conformity letter....
Eligibility for dealership applications must strictly adhere to stipulated guidelines regarding land ownership and lease terms.
Accurate information in the application form and compliance with the terms of the application are crucial for maintaining eligibility for dealership under the specified groups.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.