The court affirmed that authorities maintain discretion in selecting dealership locations, and candidacies outside advertised criteria are invalid.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

Date : 21-01-2022

Heard Mr. A.Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and A.Zahid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 24/8/2017, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the plot of land offered by her is outside the advertised area i.e. the offered plot of land does not fall under the advertised block Gossaigaon.

3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the concerned respondent authorities issued an advertisement dated 24/10/2014 by which applications were invited from eligible candidates fulfilling eligibility for award of RO dealership. In the said advertisement which has been enclosed as Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, there were various locations mentioned wherein the respondent authorities would be appointing Regular and Rural (Kissan Seva Kendra) retail outlet dealership in Assam. The instant writ petition pertains to a location at Bhowraguri, the details of which is stipulated at Sl. No. 72 of the said advertisement and the same for the sake of convenience is quoted herein below; -

4. From the said advertisement in so far as the instant writ petition is concerned the location was Bhowraguri under block Gossaigaon, Revenue District Kokrajhar. As the petitioner is the owner and occupier of a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha under Khatian No. 22 covered by Patta No.48(old) and 90 (new), Dag No. 33 (old) and 54 (new) of Salitoli Class of village Garjan Part-II, under Bhowraguri Police Outpost within Gossaigaon Revenue Circle the petitioner applied for the said dealership. Thereupon after submission of her bid, as contended by the petitioner, the Land Evaluation Committee visited the site offered by the petitioner for Retail Outlet dealership at Bhowraguri and confirmed the eligibility and suitability of the location of the plot of land. The petitioner also following the advice of the committee procured a certificate dated 30/7/2016 from the Office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gossaigaon which as per the petitioner would reveal that the land offered by the petitioner is located at Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Revenue Circle and the said certificate was also submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 vide a communication dated 1/8/2016. Thereafter, as the petitioner contends that to the utter surprise a communication dated 24/8/2017 was received by the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner’s bid has not been found to be eligible for the Retail Outlet dealership as the plot of land offered by the petitioner is outside the advertised area i.e. the offered land does not fall under the advertised Block Gossaigaon. In the said communication, it was also mentioned that if the petitioner was aggrieved against the rejection of her candidature he may file a representation within 10 days from the date of the said letter. Thereupon the petitioner on 4/9/2017 filed a representation before the respondent No. 4 contending inter lia that the decision taken that the land of the petitioner does not fall under the advertised block Gossaigaon is perverse in view of the certificate dated 30/7/2016 and that the concerned IOC Field Officer upon visit to the plot of land offered by the petitioner confirmed the eligibility and suitability of the location of the plot of land. Thereupon as the concerned respondent authorities did not act on the representation filed by the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of