AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devashis Baruah, J
Heard Mr. S. Hoque, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. D.K. Sarmah, the learned Standing Counsel, IOCL appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the e-mail dated 23.06.2025 whereby the candidature of the petitioner as a Group-1 candidate was rejected on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce the original documents for verification by the Officers/the documents produced were at variance with the documents submitted/information given in the application. It was further mentioned in the said impugned e-mail that as per the attached Jamabandi of the land, the offered land is co-owned by other persons including the lessor, Mafiz Uddin Ahmed, and the plot of land is un-partitioned. It was also mentioned that as the lease is executed only with Mafiz Uddin Ahmed and not with the other co-owners, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.
In order to decide, as to whether, any interference is required to the impugned e-mail dated 23.06.2025 issued by the respondent No. 3, it is relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition.
On 28-06-2023, an advertisement was issued in the English Daily, “The Assam Tribune” inviting applications for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership under the caption “Notice for Appointment Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership” at various locations in the State of Assam including a location at “From Bhawanipur Traffic Point to Howly Traffic Point on LHS of NH27” in the district of Barpeta, Assam under the Open category.
The petitioner applied for the said Retail Outlet i.e. “From Bhawanipur Traffic Point to Howly Traffic Point on LHS of NH27” in the district of Barpeta, Assam (hereinafter referred to as, “the Retail Outlet in question”) by submitting an application on 25.09.2023. The said application is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It is further relevant to take note of that the petitioner applied in the Group-1 category on the basis of a registered Deed of Lease dated 21.09.2023 for a plot of land situated at Village Galia, Mouza, Bhawanipur, under Dag No. 451 included in Patta No. 218.
In the draw of lots, which was held for the Retail Outlet in question, the petitioner was provisionally selected and this was informed to the petitioner vide an e-mail dated 05.12.2023. On the same day, another email dated 05.12.2023 was issued to the petitioner requesting the petitioner to remit online Rs. 50,000/- towards initial security deposit and accordingly, the petitioner deposited the said amount.
Subsequent thereto, vide another e-mail dated 12.01.2024, the Respondent Authorities informed the petitioner that the Land Evaluation Committee (LEC) would visit the site offered by the petitioner for inspection and requested the petitioner to be present personally along with photo identity card issued by any Government Department at the offered site on 22.01.2024 along with relevant land documents. There was another e-mail dated 27.02.2024 issued by the Respondent Authorities whereby the petitioner was asked to be present on 08.03.2024 for carrying out the Field Verification of Credentials (FVC) and the petitioner was requested to be present personally along with photo identity card issued by any Government Department and the original documents submitted in connection with the application for verification. The petitioner on 08.03.2024 duly participated in the Field Verification of Credentials and it is the case of the petitioner that upon inspection, no anomaly was pointed out.
It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner thereupon had no information, but on 23.06.2025 vide an e-mail, the petitioner was informed that his candidature was cancelled. It is further pertinent to mention that after the cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner, the Respondent Authorities were further taking steps for holding a fresh draw of lots on 07.07.2025. Being aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.
The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 30.06.2025 had issued notice and further passed an interim order that the result of the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 07.07.2025 shall not be declared or LOI would not be issued without informing this Court, though the Respondent Authorities may proceed with the conduct of the draw of lots as per schedule. The record further reveals that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 28.08.2025.
In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been categorically mentioned that the land offered by the petitioner for the purpose of the Retail Outlet in question was rejected as per Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Brochure”). It was mentioned that upon review of the documents which were submitted by the petitioner along with the land documents, it was found that Mobarak Mollah and Mafiz Uddin Mollah were both sons of late Abdul Rahman, who were co-owners of the land offered in the application, but in the instant case, the petitioner while submitting his application had placed a Lease Deed which was executed by Mafiz Uddin Mollah, son of late Abdul Rahman only. But the other co-owner, namely Mobarak Mollah, son of late Abdul Rahman did not execute the Lease Deed. Under such circumstances, the Lease Deed so submitted by the petitioner would not entitle him to come within the ambit of Group-1 candidate.
No reply to the said affidavit-in-opposition has been filed.
This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on record.
The submissions so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties were in terms with the pleadings and as such, for the sake of brevity, the same are not repeated herein.
The point for determination which arises in the present facts is, as to whether, the Respondent Authorities had committed any illegality in rejecting the Lease Deed dated 21.09.2023, thereby cancelling the candidature of the petitioner as a Group-1 candidate.
For deciding the said aspect, this Court has duly perused the materials on record. From a perusal of the materials on record, it is seen that a Lease Deed was executed on 21.09.2023 with the date 30.09.2023 by and between, one Mafiz Uddin Ahmed and the petitioner in respect to a plot of land admeasuring 1 Bigha 4 Katha 0 Lecha covered by Patta No. 218, Dag No. 451 situated at Village Galia, P.O. Galia, Pin- 781352 under Mouza Bhawanipur, Sub-Division- Bajali in the district of Barpeta, Assam. The period of lease was 30 years.
This Court has duly taken note of the Jamabandi which is the record of rights in respect to the land in question. From a perusal of the said Jamabandi, it is seen that on the basis of an order dated 30.06.2015, in Mutation Case No. 1697/2014-15/FMUT, the land covered by Dag No. 451 was mutated in the name of Mobarak Mollah and Mafiz Uddin Mollah, both sons of late Abdul Rahman by virtue of inheritance in place of late Abdul Rahman.
This Court finds it pertinent now to take note of Clause 4(vi) of the Brochure which specifically deals with the issue involved in the present proceedings. On the basis of said Clause, the applicants have been divided into 3 (three) categories, they are:
(i) Group-1: Applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.
(ii) Group-2: Applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long-term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.
(iii) Group-3: Applicants who have not offered land in the application. Only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category.
It is further seen from the said Clause 4(vi) of the Brochure that the applications under Group-3 would be processed/advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant gets selected under Group-1 and Group-2. The said Clause further stipulates that in case land offered by all the applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 is found not suitable/not meeting the requirements, then these applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 along with the applicants under Group-3 (who did not offer land along with the application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location /stretch within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of the intimation letter to them through SMS or e-mail. The said Clause 4(vi) of the Brochure further stipulates other conditions. Condition No. (a), amongst others is relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute, for which, the same is reproduced herein under:
“a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on Long-term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co-owners of the offered plot. Incase lease deed is not executed by all co-owners; such lease deed shall be treated as invalid.”
From a perusal of the above clause, it would be seen that the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of the application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by the respective oil company) from the date or after the date of the advertisement, but not later than the date of the application. It is further stipulated that if the offered land is on a long term lease and there are multiple owners, then the Lease Deed should be executed by all co-owners of the offered land. The further stipulation is that in case the Lease Deed is not executed by all co-owners, such Lease Deed shall be treated as invalid.
In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the Lease Deed dated 21.09.2023, along with the Record of Rights, it is apparent that the land in question is jointly owned by Mafiz Uddin Mollah along with Mobarak Mollah. However, the Lease Deed has only been executed by Mafiz Uddin Mollah. Under such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, the Lease Deed so submitted by the petitioner dated 21.09.2023 could not have been taken into consideration for the purpose of offering of the land and to come within the ambit of Group-1. The Respondent Authorities, therefore, were justified in rejecting the candidature vide the e-mail dated 23.06.2025.
Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the instant proceedings, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed.
Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.