Gauhati High Court
Rojiul Islam vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 18 November, 2024
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010051972021
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1936/2021
ROJIUL ISLAM
S/O LATE HABIBUR RAHMAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HARIPUR KARAIKHOWA,
PO KHARMUJA, PS BAGUAN, DIST GOALPARA,ASSAM 783101
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM
AND NATURAL GAS , NEW DELHI
2:THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17 JAMSHEDHI TATA ROAD
MUMBAI 400020 AND HAVING ITS GUWAHATI RETIAL REGIONAL OFFICE
AT 2ND FLOOR JANAPATH
H.D. COMPLEX
G.S ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUPM ASSAM 781007
3:THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
2ND FLOOR JANAPATH
H.D. COMPLEX
G.S ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUPM ASSAM 781007
Page No.# 2/3
4:THE AREA MANAGER
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR JANAPATH
H.D. COMPLEX
G.S ROAD
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUPM ASSAM 78100
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. T J MAHANTA, MR. M H TALUKDAR
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR. B DEKA,MR S A SIKDER (R2-R4),MR. M R
ISLAM (R2-R4),MR. B DEKA (R-1)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
18.11.2024
Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M.H. Talukdar, learned
counsel for the petitioner. Also Mr. M.R. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 &
4. Mr. K. Gogoi, learned CGC appears for the respondent No.1.
2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner
is assailing the impugned communication dated 11.06.2020 issued on behalf of the Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd, cancelling the subject location Jaipur Bazar to Khurmuja Bazar
against which the petitioner has been selected for awarding retail outlet dealership.
3. The writ petitioner herein was selected for allotting a retail outlet of petroleum
dealership in the site indicated at Sl. No.81 of the Advertisement Notice dated 25.11.2018,
which was on a rural road. After the selection was made, a complaint was lodged by an
outsider stating that the location was not on a rural road, but it is on a State Highway. As
such, the selection of the petitioner for setting up the retail outlet dealership was cancelled by
the impugned communication dated 11.06.2020. Hence, this writ petition.
Page No.# 3/3
4. Pertinent that another writ petition being WP(C) No.4787/2022 was filed by one Tapan
Kumar Nath, who was selected for allotment of a retail outlet of petroleum dealership against
the same Advertisement Notice dated 25.11.2018 in the site indicated at Sl. No.80. In the
aforesaid writ petition, the respondent No.6 (PWD) had filed an affidavit, inter alia, confirming
that the aforesaid locations at Sl. Nos.80 and 81 falls under the category of "rural road." It
further appears that in view of the aforesaid endorsement made by the respondent No.6
(PWD), this Court by judgment and order dated 27.09.2023 disposed of the aforesaid writ
petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to do the needful by taking note of the
stand taken by the respondent No.6 (PWD) in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said affidavit.
5. It is submitted at the Bar that the present writ petition can also be disposed of in similar
lines.
6. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, this writ petition
can be disposed of by directing the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to do the needful by taking note of
the stand taken by the respondent No.6 in paragraphs 7 to 9 of the affidavit filed in WP(C)
No.4787/2022. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation order dated 11.06.2020 is set aside
and quashed in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent No.6(PWD) in WP(C)
No.4787/2022.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
