The court confirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 assesses the decision-making process rather than the decision's correctness, affirming valid grounds for refusing an application due to non-compliance with advertisement conditions.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The approach to this Writ Court has been made with the following relief:-

“In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayer that that Your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and issue rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why:

1) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned rejection of application No.BPC16973508045387 of the Petitioner for RO (Retail Outlet) dealership vide Order dated 08/06/2024.

2) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned final select list dated 19-06-2024 for RO (Retail Outlet) dealership selecting the Respondent No.3.

3) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent authority to consider and dispose of the Representation of the Petitioner dated 14/06/2024.

4) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to consider the application No.BPC16973508045387 of the Petitioner for RO (Retail Outlet) dealership which was provisionally approved vide order dated 11/12/2023.

5) And/or be pleased to pass such further order / orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

During Pendency of the writ petition Your Lordships would be further pleased to direct the respondent No-2 notto finalize the RO dealership of the selected candidates till the outcome of this Writ Petition and/or stay/suspend the awarding of RO (Retail Outlet) dealership at WITHIN 2 KM FROM AMGURI POLICE STATION TOWARDS BONGAINGAON (NOT ON HN/SH) DISTRICT-CHIRANG, STATE ASSAM under ST category pursuant to Advertisement dated 28-06-2023 and/or pass such further order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

2. As per the facts projected, the respondent no. 2 had issued an advertisement on 28.06.2024 inviting applications for awarding retail outlet dealership at various places including the present location “within 2 Km from Amguri Police Station towards Bongaigaon (Not On NH/SH), Chirang, Assam.” The advertisement contained a condition that the candidates would have to be either the owner of the land in question or a lease holder for 25 years vide a registered lease.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that a lease deed was duly executed and registered on 15.10.2023 over a plot of land and accordingly, the application was made. After such application, the bid of the petitioner was selected by way of draw of lots and the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards initial security deposit and also to upload certain self attested documents which the petitioner claims to have done. Further documents were also claimed to have been submitted/uploaded by the petitioner.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is however with a communication dated 08.06.2024 whereby his application has been rejected. The ground mentioned in the said communication is non-execution of the lease deed by the other co-owners. The petitioner also claims to have preferred an internal appeal as provided which was not disposed of and on the other hand, the respondent no.3 was selected in place of the petitioner.

5. I have heard Shri B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. None appears for the respondent no. 3.

6. At the outset, Shri Kaushik, the learned couns