IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta.

IN THE MATTER OF WPA 8125 of 2020 Antara Mondal Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

With WPA 9344 of 2021 Namita Mondal Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

With WPA 2124 of 2022 Gargi Mondal Vs.

Indian Oil Corporation & Ors.

For the Petitioner (IN WPA 8125 of 2020) : Mr. SN Mitra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sudip Sarkar, Adv.

For the Petitioner (In WPA 2124 of 2022) : Mr. Prosenjit Mukherjee, Adv.

For the IOCL : Mr. Puspendu Chakraborty, Adv., For the Private Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Arka Maiti, Adv.

Ms. Ambiya Khatun Adv., Md. Nasirul Haque Adv.

Reserved on : 04.03.2025 Judgment on : 07.05.2025 Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. These three writ petitions are preferred challenging selection of respondent No. 9 namely Indumoti Rauth, by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) for LPG distributorship at location Atpukur, Minakha District North 24 Parganas, West Bengal.

2. The brief fact of the case is that Indian Oil Corporation along with two other Oil Marketing Company (OMC) namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation of Limited had come up with an advertisement on 31.08.2017 in the newspaper “Anandabazar Patrika” inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection of LPG distributors at various locations within the State of West Bengal. In the terms of the said advertisement Atpukur, Mouza was reserved for Scheduled Caste, Women applicants. Petitioners along with the respondent No. 9 and thus participated in the selection process by making applications. Applicants were invited for draw of lots. Respondent No. 9, Indumoti Rauth was selected in the draw of lots. At the time of FVC (field verification credentials) it was revealed that the land offered by respondent No. 9 is situated at Mouza Uchildaha, District North 24 Parganas i.e. not situated within advertised location. Accordingly by a letter dated 6th September, 2018, candidature of respondent No. 9 was rejected. Respondent No. 9 approached this court vide writ petition No. WPA 18857/2018. During the pendency of the said writ petition IOCL issued a letter dated 30th October, 2018 asking the respondent No. 9 to offer alternate land.

3. A Co-ordinate Bench of This Court has disposed of the writ petition being No. WPA 18857/2018 observing therein as follows:-

Mr. Saha, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent no. 4 issued a letter to the petitioner on 30th (0ctober, 2018 granting opportunity to the petitioner to offer an alternate land along with relevant records, as required under the guideline. On the basis of the said letter, the petitioner has already offered the alternate land documents but no final order till date has been communicated to the petitioner by the respondent no. 4, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the IOCL submits that no final decision could be taken on the basis of the alternate land document, as submitted by the petitioner, since the writ petition is pending.

Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and upon considering the materials on record, this Court directs the respondent no. 4 to consider the alternate land documents, as submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the dated 30th October, 2018, and to take a final decision, in accordance with law, and to communicate the same to the petitioner.

The above exercise shall be completed by the respondent No. 4 within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

4. Respondent No. 9 vide letter dated 12th November 2018 offered an alternative land for construction of proposed show room godown within advertised location i.e. Mouza Atpukur under JL No. 100 Khatian No. 898 plot No. 1620. It was the contention of the respondent No. 9 that the same land was offered by her at