Page No.# 1/6 vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 2269 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 24 January, 2025

                                                                             Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010149282021




                                                                     2025:GAU-AS:773

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/4935/2021

            BULBULI SAIKIA
            W/O- DIBYABHUSHAN SAIKIA, R/O- NO.3, KOIBARTA GAON, P.O.
            MORANGI CHARIALI, P.S. GOLAGHAT, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM



            VERSUS

            BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR
            (IN SHORT BPCL) REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM- MANAGING DIRECTOR
            HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY
            ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI- 400001

            2:HEAD OF TERRITORY OFFICE
             BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
            T M RETAIL
             GHY
             1ST FLOOR
             NEXLA PARK
             GMCH ROAD
             CHRISTIAN BASTI
             GHY
             DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
             78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R PHUKAN,

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S ROY (R-1,2), MR. S BORTHAKUR (R-1,2)

Page No.# 2/6

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Date : 24.01.2025

Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has presented a challenge to a communication dated 30.04.2021, to the extent the same declared the petitioner to be ineligible for being considered as an applicant in Group-1 for award of Retail Outlet Dealership at location from "Kanaighat Tiniali to Solmari Tiniali at National Highway-29, Golaghat", in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:-

The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), vide an advertisement dated 25.11.2018, proceeded to advertise various location for award of Retail Outlet Dealership. One of such location advertised for award of such Dealerships was from "Kanaighat Tiniali to Solmari Tiniali at National Highway-29, Golaghat". In terms of the said advertisement, the said location was reserved for OBC community candidates. The petitioner being eligible in terms of the said advertisement dated 25.11.2018, proceeded to submit her application in response thereto, for being awarded a Retail Outlet Dealership for the location from "Kanaighat Tiniali to Solmari Tiniali at National Highway-29, Golaghat". The petitioner had applied in pursuance to the said advertisement for being considered against the said location by treating her to be an applicant within the Group-1 category. In support of her such claim of being placed in Group-1 Page No.# 3/6

category, the petitioner had along with her application, submitted a lease agreement entered into by her with one Dudu Ali on 21.12.2018. The lease agreement, as relied upon by the petitioner was so made for a period of 19 years 11 months. The petitioner was treated as a Group-1 applicant and accordingly, her application was also included in the draw of lots for selection of Retail Outlet Dealership for the said location, by treating her to be an applicant within Group-1 category.

In terms of the results of the draw of lots, the petitioner was vide communication dated 30.01.2020, informed that she was selected for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership for the said location. It is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner, pursuant to issuance of the said communication dated 30.01.2020 was awaiting issuance of Letter of Acceptance in her favour. However, the same not being issued, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities enquiring about the reason for the delay so occasioning in the matter. On a enquiry, the petitioner could come to learn from the website of the respondent Corporation that the respondent authorities vide a communication dated 30.04.2021 had rejected her candidature. Thereafter, the petitioner had downloaded a copy of the said communication dated 30.04.2021 from the website and the petitioner, on perusal of the same, came to learn that she, pursuant to the draw of lots so held in the matter, was held to be not eligible for being considered as a Group-1 category applicant on the ground that the land documents submitted by the petitioner did not fulfill the requirements for considering her to be an applicant within the Group-1 category. The petitioner, being aggrieved, had instituted the present proceeding assailing the said communication dated 30.04.2021.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts as noticed herein above, has submitted that the applicant having brought on record the Page No.# 4/6

lease agreement dated 21.12.2018, and the same indicating that the petitioner had taken on lease a parcel of land belonging to the lessor for a period of 19 years 11 months, she had satisfied the requirements for being considered as a Group-1 applicant in pursuance to the said advertisement dated 25.11.2018, for the location in question. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have not held the land so offered by the petitioner to be not suitable for the purpose of setting up of the Retail Outlet Dealership therein, and accordingly, it is submitted that the said communication dated 30.04.2021, having been issued without examining the matter in its proper perspective, would call for an interference by this Court.

5. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation by referring to the guidelines for selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlet Dealership by draw of lots/bidding processes, has submitted that for being considered as a Group-1 category applicant, the intending applicant must have a suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership or in the form of a long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as may be specified by the employer. Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel has submitted that in terms of the said guidelines, in the event the applicant is offering the land so taken on long term lease, there has to be a registered lease deed so submitted by the applicant in the matter.

6. By referring to the lease agreement as submitted by the petitioner and available in the records of the present proceeding, it is submitted by Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel that the lease agreement is only a notorized one and the same cannot be construed to be a registered lease deed as mandated by law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner not having fulfilled the required eligibility criteria for being considered as a Group-1 applicant, the respondent Corporation, on examination of the documents submitted by the petitioner, having Page No.# 5/6

not found her to be not eligible for being considered as a Group-1 category applicant, proceeded to issue the communication dated 30.04.2021, rejecting her such categorization as a Group-1 applicant. It is submitted by Mr. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent that the communication dated 30.04.2021, having been so issued strictly, in compliance with the guidelines holding the field, the same would not call for an interference by this Court.

7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and also perused the materials placed on record.

8. The applicant, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018, had submitted her application for being awarded Retail Outlet Dealership for the location from "Kanaighat Tiniali to Solmari Tiniali at National Highway-29, Golaghat" and for consideration as a Group-1 category applicant. In terms of the guidelines holding the field, the applicants were classified into three groups basing on the nature of the land offered and/or land not offered by them. 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 are categorized in Group-1 category. 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 are categorized in Group-2 category and the applicants who have not offered any land in their application are categorized in Group-3 category. In terms of the procedure mandated for selection, the applicants who were categorized in Group-1 category are first taken up for consideration by way of draw of lots and it is only in the event when such category of applicants is absent or not found suitable, the application of applicants categorized as Group-2 or Group-3 is taken up for consideration. The said guideline further mandates that in the event the applicant is offering the land basing on a long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months then such offer must be supported by a Page No.# 6/6

registered lease deed for the period so mandated pertaining to the land in question.

9. In the case on hand, it is seen that the lease agreement as entered into by the petitioner with one Dudu Ali with regard to the land offered by the petitioner, is not a registered lease deed but is only a notorized one. Accordingly, the said lease deed would not in the considered view of this Court, satisfy the mandate of the guideline holding the field and accordingly, the categorization of the applicant as a Group-1 category applicant, would not be called for.

10. In view of the above position, the decision of the respondent Corporation that in view of the land documents submitted by the petitioner, she would not be eligible for being categorized as a Group-1 category applicant, is not erroneous and would not mandate interference from this Court.

11. In view of the above conclusions, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the respondent authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner and accordingly, the communication dated 30.04.2021 would not call for any interference. The writ petition accordingly, is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant