Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Dwimu Boro D/o Kameswar Boro – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited – Respondent
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 w
The court affirmed that its jurisdiction under Article 226 is to evaluate the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision itself.
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 no....
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.
A typographical error in a lease deed does not disqualify an applicant for a dealership if rectified before the application deadline, as it relates back to the original deed.
The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner's LOI due to failure to meet ownership requirements as per tender rules, emphasizing fairness in the selection process.
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.
A notarized lease deed is legally ineffective; eligibility for a dealership requires a registered deed on the application date, according to statutory guidelines.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
