Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010273202024
2025:GAU-AS:14357
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6853/2024
DIPAK KUMAR DAS
S/O LATE SIVARAM DAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAKUAPARA, PO CHAKCHAKA, PS SORBHOG DIST
BARPETA, ASSAM 781317
VERSUS
THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE HEAD OF THE TERRITORY OFFICE(GUWAHATI )
1ST FLOOR, NEXIA PARK, GMCH ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI
781005, ASSAM
2:THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL)
BHARAT PETORLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
1ST FLOOR
NEXIA PARK
GMCH ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI 781005
ASSAM
3:THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
GOVT. OF INDIA
ROOM NO. 305
WING B
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI 110011
4:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL
RESETTLEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF EX SERVICEMEN WELFARE (DESW) THE MINISTRY OF
Page No.# 2/5
DEFENCE
GOVT. OF INDIA
ROOM NO. 305
WING B
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI 110011
5:THE KENDRIYA SAINIK BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF EX SERVICEMEN WELFARE (DESW) THE MINISTRY OF
DEFENCE
GOVT. OF INDIA
ROOM NO. 305
WING B
SENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI 110011
6:THE DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS RAJYA SAINIK BOARD) GENERAL
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
GOVT. OF ASSAM
SAINIK BHAWAN
LACHIT NAGAR MAIN ROAD
SOUTH SARANIA
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100
7:THE ZILLA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE
FORMERLY KNOWN AS ZILA SAINIK BOARD KOKRAJHAR
UNDER THE DIRECTORATE OF SAINIK WELFARE GOVT. OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE ZILA SAINIK WELFARE OFFICE
KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
8:PREMENDRA KUMAR MISHRA
SUB MAJOR (HONY LT)
HOUSE NO. 422/AM/1033
MPHALLA SWASTIKA CITY
VILLAGE-AHAMAMAU
P.O.-ARJUN GANJ
LUCKNOW
UTTAR PRADESH-22600
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gogoi, Addl. AG, Assam
: Mr. S. Borthakur, Standing Counsel
Page No.# 3/5
Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025
Date of Judgment : 27.10.2025
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the Petitioner and Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing
on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. B. Gogoi,
the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam who appears on behalf of
the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. None appears on behalf of the Respondent
Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the
impugned letter dated 01.11.2024 whereby the Petitioner's application for
Selection of Service Provider for Bharat Petroleum Corporation's Company
Owned Company Operated (COCO) Service Provider at BP Shrirampur,
Kokrajhar was rejected; not to give effect to the letter dated 01.11.2024;
directing the Respondent Authorities for reconsidering the Petitioner's
application in terms with the guidelines prescribed in the Brochure dated
15.12.2023; issuance of directions upon the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to
forward the Petitioner's nomination for Selection of Service Provider for
Bharat Petroleum Corporation's Company Owned Company Operated (COCO)
Service Provider at BP Shrirampur, Kokrajhar in accordance with the
directives contained in the letter dated 05.04.2024 and Advisory dated
18.09.2024 issued by the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of
Page No.# 4/5
Defence, Government of India; and in the alternative, directing the
Respondent Authorities to cancel the selection process for Selection of
Service Provider for Bharat Petroleum Corporation's Company Owned
Company Operated (COCO) Service Provider at BP Shrirampur, Kokrajhar
pending appropriate amendments in the Guidelines contained in the
Brochure dated 15.12.2023 by the Respondent No.1 in accordance with the
directives contained in the letter dated 05.04.2024 and Advisory dated
18.09.2024 issued by the Directorate General Resettlement, Ministry of
Defence, Government of India.
3. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the competent authority have
accorded approval for cancellation of the selection process for Service
Provider for BP, Shrirampur. He further submitted that this very aspect of the
matter is therefore brought to the attention of this Court so that the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can take appropriate action in accordance with
law. In that regard, he has placed before this Court an Email dated
27.10.2025 issued by the Senior Manager, Legal, BPCL which is kept on
record and marked with the letter "X".
4. This Court further takes note of that the Respondent No.6 has also filed
an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was mentioned that the Directorate
General of Resettlement's letter dated 05.04.2024 was neither addressed nor
received by the Respondent No.6. It was further mentioned that the KSB
letter dated 12.04.2024 was received on similar lines of that of the
Respondent No.4's letter. In addition to that, it was stated that the
Respondent No.2 had approached and handed over the letter to the then
Page No.# 5/5
Director, Directorate of Sainik Welfare, Assam for volunteer Ex-Servicemen,
for managing an existing petrol pump at Shrirampur, Assam. The, then
Director, acting in good faith and as a welfare measure for Ex-Servicemen,
wrote to all Zilla Sainik Welfare Officials for details of volunteer Ex-
servicemen for the job. On receipt of four volunteers, the same was
forwarded to the Respondent No.2 vide DSW letter dated 26.06.2024. It was
regretted by the Respondent No.6 that while doing so, the KSB letter dated
12.04.2024 was not taken into consideration due to oversight.
5. Taking into account that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are the
settling authority have taken a decision for cancellation of the selection
process which have been impugned in the instant proceedings and there is a
move to go ahead with the fresh selection proceedings by following the
extant policies and guidelines, this Court is of the opinion that nothing
further survives in the instant writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands closed thereby taking on
record the decision of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for cancellation of the
selection process which is impugned in the instant proceedings as well as
the stand of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that fresh selection would be done
in accordance with the extant policies and guidelines.
7. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
