AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AM Bujor Barua, J
Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
By a notice for appointment of retail outlet dealers issued by the appellant, claimswere invited for appointment of a retail outlet dealer, amongst
others at Mangaldoi town, to which the respondent had submitted his application. One of the requirements of the notice for appointment was that in
respect of the category ‘ individual persons’, the candidate would be assessed for having the capability to provide land and
infrastructure/facilities, for which 35 marks would be allotted.
Towards the capability to provide land and infrastructure/facilities, the respondentsubmitted a lease deed dated 22.08.2012 between Sri Gunendra
Das and the respondent, by which it was provided that Sri Gunendra Das being the absolute owner of a plot of land measuring 0B-2K-16L of Dag
No.186, 188, PP No.689 of Mangaldoi town would grant a lease in favour of the petitioner. The respondent, along with others, were duly assessed by
the appellant authorities and was declared to be the first in order of merit.
But in spite of being the first in the order of merit, the letter of intent was not issuedin his favour. The reason for not issuing the letter of intent was
that there was a dispute with regard to the land offered by the respondent, which was taken on lease and was the subject matter of Title Suit
106/2013. The dispute was that the land that was taken on lease and offered to the appellants was a joint patta land between the brothers of Sri
Gunendra Das. Later on, a compromise was effected and the dispute between the brothers was amicably settled. Upon such settlement,
appropriate no objection certificates were produced by the respondent before the appellant authorities.
When the letter of intent was not issued even thereafter, the respondent preferredWP(C) 413/2015. The said writ petition was given a final
consideration by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2015, by which, the writ petition was allowed and the appellant IOCL was directed to complete
the process of selection and appointment in terms of the result of the interview and assessment made on 17.05.2013, wherein, in fact, the respondent
was found to be first in the order of merit.
In the said writ petition, the appellant authorities took a stand that as per a CircularNo.6069(DSG)-16/10 dated 10.02.2010 of IOCL, the evaluation
of the capability to provide land and infrastructure facility would have to be done based on the norms of having a clear title over the own land, which
also includes the land obtained on lease. Accordingly, the appellants contended that there being a dispute to the title of Sri Gunendra Das over the
lease land, the respondent being the lessee thereof does not have a clear title over the land.
The said stand of the appellant authorities was rejected by the learned single judge byarriving at a conclusion that the notice for appointment having
not referred to the circular dated 10.02.2010, any reliance upon the same to reject the claim of the respondent on the ground of not having a clear title,
would amount to changing the rules of the game after a game had begun.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order in WP(C) 413/2015, the present appealhas been preferred by the IOCL, mainly on the ground that the
circular dated 10.02.2010 depicts a policy decision of the appellant authorities and under the said policy, the land offered by the respondent is
unacceptable.
In course of hearing of the appeal, the respondent has also produced No ObjectionCertificates from all the co-sharers of the land, an implication
whereof would be that the respondent has a clear title over the land offered.Â
Accordingly, a contention has been raised that even the objection raised by theappellant authorities based upon the circular dated 10.02.2010 is no
longer sustainable and the appellants would not prejudiced in any manner if the letter of intent is issued in favour of the respondent.
When we take a look at the lease deed dated 22.08.2012, it is noticed that the lessortherein had made an averment that he is the absolute owner
and possessor of the land in question and therefore, the respondent could not have had any occasion to think contrary to such provision. Further,
neither the records reveal nor it is the stand of the appellant authorities that the respondent at any stage had either mislead the authorities or had
manipulated his bid in any manner so as to derive an undue advantage.
Moreover, it being an admitted position of all that the lessor Sri Gunendra Das is theowner and possessor of the land in question, subject of course
to the fact that he is a cosharer in the whole plot of the land which includes the leased portion of the land and therefore, the only requirement was to
obtain the No Objection Certificates from the cosharers.
We are of the view that in the circumstances as narrated above, it will be inequitable on the part of the appellant authorities to deny the
respondent from being issued with the letter of intent, unless of course he is otherwise found eligible in respect of the other parameters. It is also taken
note of that the respondent has an adjudication in his favour in the way of a judgment and order dated 30.07.2015 in WP(C) 413/2015 and the
appellant authorities have not made out any firm ground to substantiate any illegality in the said judgment.
In view of the above, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit calling for aninterference with the judgment and order dated 30.07.2015 in
WP(C) No.413/2015 and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
   Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.