Page No.# 1/7 vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ... on 6 January, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                   Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010129182024




                                                            2026:GAU-AS:264

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/3301/2024
         DWIMU BORO
         D/O- KAMESWAR BORO, R/O- VILL.- BOGIDWARA, P.O. SULIAKATA, P.S.
         PANBARI, DIST. CHIRANG, PIN- 783317, ASSAM


         VERSUS

         BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS
         (BPCL), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,OFFICE ADDRESS- AT BHARAT
         BHAVAN,4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-
         400001, MAHARASHTRA.

         2:THE TERRITORIAL MANAGER (RETAIL)
          GUWAHATI
          BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED
         1ST FLOOR
         NEXIA PARK
         GMCH ROAD
         CHRISTIAN BASTI
          GUWAHATI-781005.

         3:KINA GOYARI
          D/O- LAKHIRAM GOYARY
          R/O- VILL.- KALIYAGAON
          P.O. JAYPUR
          P.S. AMGURI
          PIN- 782293
          DIST. CHIRANG
         ASSA
                                                                          Page No.# 2/7



                                  BEFORE
                 Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI


Advocate for the petitioner    : Shri B. Kaushik, Advocate.

Advocates for the respondents : Shri S. Borthakur, Advocate (R-1 & 2).

Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA

Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

The approach to this Writ Court has been made with the following relief:-

"In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayer that that Your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and issue rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why:

1) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned rejection of application No.BPC16973508045387 of the Petitioner for RO (Retail Outlet) dealership vide Order dated 08/06/2024.

2) A Writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction should not be issued to set aside and quash the impugned final select list dated 19-06-2024 for RO (Retail Outlet) dealership selecting the Respondent No-3.

3) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the Page No.# 3/7

Respondent authority to consider and dispose of the Representation of the Petitioner dated 14/06/2024.

4) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing the respondent authorities to consider the application No.BPC16973508045387 of the Petitioner for RO (Retail Outlet) dealership which was provisionally approved vide order dated 11/12/2023.

5) And/or be pleased to pass such further order / orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

-AND-

During Pendency of the writ petition Your Lordships would be further pleased to direct the respondent No-2 notto finalize the RO dealership of the selected candidates till the outcome of this Writ Petition and/or stay/suspend the awarding of RO (Retail Outlet) dealership at WITHIN 2 KM FROM AMGURI POLICE STATION TOWARDS BONGAINGAON (NOT ON HN/SH) DISTRICT- CHIRANG, STATE ASSAM under ST category pursuant to Advertisement dated 28-06-2023 and/or pass such further order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness your petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

2. As per the facts projected, the respondent no. 2 had issued an advertisement on 28.06.2024 inviting applications for awarding retail outlet dealership at various places including the present location "within 2 Km from Amguri Police Station towards Bongaigaon (Not On NH/SH), Chirang, Assam". The advertisement contained a condition that the candidates would have to be either the owner of the land in question or a lease holder for 25 years vide a Page No.# 4/7

registered lease.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that a lease deed was duly executed and registered on 15.10.2023 over a plot of land and accordingly, the application was made. After such application, the bid of the petitioner was selected by way of draw of lots and the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards initial security deposit and also to upload certain self attested documents which the petitioner claims to have done. Further documents were also claimed to have been submitted/uploaded by the petitioner.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is however with a communication dated 08.06.2024 whereby his application has been rejected. The ground mentioned in the said communication is non-execution of the lease deed by the other co- owners. The petitioner also claims to have preferred an internal appeal as provided which was not disposed of and on the other hand, the respondent no. 3 was selected in place of the petitioner.

5. I have heard Shri B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. None appears for the respondent no. 3.

6. At the outset, Shri Kaushik, the learned counsel has submitted that while moving the writ petition on 27.06.2024, an interim order was passed for maintenance of status quo which has been extended from time to time.

7. He has submitted that there is no application of mind before issuance of the impugned communication dated 08.06.2024 as the reason prescribed is Page No.# 5/7

erroneous and contrary to the records. He has reiterated that the lessor of the petitioner is the sole and exclusive owner of a plot of land measuring 4 Bigha covered by Dag No. 229 of PP Patta No. 32 of village Lakhipur under Bijni Mouza and the other documents including the jamabandi and chitha clearly establish the said fact. He has submitted that there is no dispute to the proposition that the lease deed dated 22.09.2023 is duly registered and properly executed and in view of the same, there was no reason to go beyond the requirement under the advertisement in question. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 17.09.2025 by which, he has brought on record the Sale Deed pertaining to the purchase of the land in question by the lessor of the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 is liable to be interfered with and a direction is required to be issued for going ahead with the process of allotment with the petitioner.

9. Per contra, Shri Borthakur, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that the reasons assigned for issuance of the impugned letter are germane and relevant as it is one of the essential conditions of the tender process that the land in question has to be free from all encumbrances. He has submitted that the applicant can either be the owner of the land of the location or can be a lessee through a valid registered lease deed. He has however pointed out that on verification, it transpires that there were multiple owners of the land in question and the lease were executed with only one of the owners. He has submitted that the aspect that the lessor of the petitioner had purchased the land separately is also belied by the documents Page No.# 6/7

enclosed in the additional affidavit by the petitioner himself inasmuch as the said Sale Deed is not a registered one.

10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

11. The impugned order of rejection dated 08.06.2024 issued to the petitioner has clearly assigned the reason for declaring the candidature of the petitioner to be ineligible. For ready reference, the reasons prescribed is extracted herein below:-

"3. However, we have not received the required documents from you within the stipulated time as detailed below:

All Co-owners of offered land have not executed lease deed and as per DSG 2023 (clause 4 (vi) (a) such lease deed is treated as invalid."

12. It is not in dispute that such a reason is a relevant reason and the only requirement of this Court is to see whether the said reason prescribed is factually correct or not. Though this Court is not a Court on facts, on a prima face view, the documents enclosed by the petitioner to support his case do not lead this Court to come to a conclusion that the land in question is solely owned by the lessor of the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon a jamabandi and also taken the support of the Sale Deed in question. A bare perusal of the extract of the Sale Deed would however show that the same which was executed sometime in the year 2015 is an unregistered document. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the land in question is in the BTC which is a

6th Schedule area under the Constitution of India and the aspect as to whether the lessor of the petitioner who appears to be a non tribal could have purchased land in the year 2015 is itself a doubtful aspect which this Court would not like Page No.# 7/7

to go any further.

13. This Court is of the view that there has been proper application of mind on the part of the respondent Corporation and no mala fide appears to be there in the impugned decision making process. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to examine the decision but the decision making process. In the present case, the process appears to be done lawfully and the reason assigned for the impugned action appears to be relevant and germane to the facts and circumstances.

14. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

15. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

16. Cost made easy.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant