Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited And 4 Ors on 3 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010231632025
2025:GAU-AS:14916
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6185/2025
SAHA ALAM LASKAR
SON OF NURUL AMIN LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BERENGA PART-
II, P.O.- BERENGA, P.S.- SILCHAR, DISTRICT-CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788005.
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4 ORS
REGISTERED OFFICE- INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG,
D BLOCK BKC, NAUPADA, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LPG)
IOCL
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
SECTOR- III
NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781020
ASSAM.
3:THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD
IOCL
SILCHAR DIVISIONAL OFFICE
MOINARBOND DOPOT
P.S.- UDHARBOND
P.O.- GOSSAIPUR
SILCHAR
DISTRICT-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788030.
4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
Page No.# 2/10
ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM.
5:THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
HAILAKANDI T. DIVISION
HAILAKANDI DISTRICT
ASSA
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocate for the petitioner (s) : Mr. D. Chakraborty, Advocate
Advocate for the respondent (s) : Mr. M. K. Choudhury,
Sr. Advocate/SC, IOCL Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate Mr. D. Gogoi, SC, Forest Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. D. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 3/10 respondent Nos.4 & 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the email dated 17.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner was informed that the candidature of the petitioner for the Retail Outlet Dealership within 5 kilometers from Bilaipur MPHC Hospital towards Lala on Goglacherra Bilaipur Road, District- Hailakandi was cancelled, and further, seeking directions that the Forest Department through the respondent No.5 should expedite the process for allotment of land in the name of the petitioner.
3. This Court taking into account the issue involved, therefore, issues Rule returnable forthwith.
4. It appears from the records that the Indian Oil Corporation had issued a notice for appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet Petrol Pump Dealership, and such advertisement was published on 28.06 2023 in the English Daily "The Assam Tribune". The location in question is Sl. No.345 of the Notice, i.e. within 5 kilometers from Bilaipur MPHC Hospital towards Lala on Goglacherra Bilaipur Road, District-Hailakandi. The petitioner pursuant to the said advertisement submitted the application on 17.10.2023 claiming that the petitioner fell within the Group 2 category, and in that respect, has placed reliance upon an affidavit submitted by Smt. Jeena Barman, wherein it was mentioned that in case the petitioner is selected for Retail Outlet Dealership, she would either Page No.# 4/10 sell/transfer/lease the said plot of land to Oil Company or to the petitioner for setting up of the Retail Outlet facility in the said location.
5. It is further seen from the materials on record that the draw of lots was held by the respondent IOCL Authorities amongst the applicants coming within the purview of Group 2 category and the petitioner herein was provisionally selected. Thereupon, the petitioner duly submitted the security deposit on the basis of the communication dated 12.12.2023 to the tune of Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner was further informed that the documents of the petitioner would be verified. The records further reveal that pursuant thereto an email dated 23.01.2024 was issued stating inter alia the reasons why rectification of the documents were sought for. Taking into account the relevance of the said email, this Court finds it relevant to quote the relevant portion of the said email herein under:-
To, Mr. SANIM ALAM LASKAR Address: VILL: BEBENGA PT-II, PO: BEBENGA PS: SILCHAR DISTRICT: CACHAR STATE: ASSAM Pin Code: 788002 Applicant Mobile No.: 7002636902 Subject: Application for award of RO dealership at WITHIN 5 KM FROM BILAIPUR MPHC HOSPITAL TOWARDS GALA ON GAJALACHERRA Page No.# 5/10 BILAIPUR ROAD District NALBARI State ASSAM under OPEN PH category Advertised on 28-Jun-2022.
Dear Sir, Please refer to your application Ref. No.: IOC/16975316548603 on the subject.
You are requested to upload the following rectified/correct document(s) by 13-Feb-2024. To upload rectified/correct document(s) Click Here or login to https://www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in/interview-2023/ so that your application for award of Retail Outlet dealership at the above location can be processed further.
1. Notarized Affidavit by the applicant as per Appendix-XA/XB (Standard Affidavit), as applicable.
2. Khasra / Khatouni or any other equivalent revenue document or certificate obtained from revenue official confirming the status of ownership of the land as on the date of advertisement.
3. Copy of land documents in support of Ownership / Lease rights.
4. Sketch of the offered land with dimension.
5. Appendix - à€ III (for offer of land), if applicable. Please note that such consent letter(s) in the form of affidavit (Appendix- à€ III) should have been tendered by the owner(s) of the offered land on or before the date of your application.
Reason:
· Notarized Affidavit by the applicant as per Appendix-XA clause 19 Page No.# 6/10 missing fixed fee details which needs to be corrected and reuploaded.
· Revenue document or certificate not uploaded for offered land.
· Copy of land documents in support of ownership is forest land which is not alienable or can be leased/proof of giving lease to applicant in future to be uploaded.
· Sketch of the offered land with correct dimension to be corrected and reuploaded.
· Appendix- à€ III from Mr. Jeera Baimal is taken who is not Landowner.
Please note that your candidature is liable for rejection without any further notice in case you fail to upload the above stated rectified / correct document(s) within the stipulated time.
Thanking you, Yours faithfully For Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
HIMANSHU SHARMA Head of Divisional Office, Silchar Divisional Office Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Moinarbond Depot, P.S. Udharbond PO. Gossaipur Silchar Cachar District-Assam-788020-03842 - 232378
6. From the above quoted email, it would be seen that there were many defects in the documents so submitted by the petitioner. Amongst the defects relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute are that the copies of the land documents which were submitted by the petitioner were a non-alienable land which could not be given on long-term lease. It is also mentioned that Page No.# 7/10 the Appendix-III which was submitted by Smti. Jeena Barman could not have been submitted as she was not the landowner of the land mentioned in her affidavit.
7. The petitioner, on coming to learn about the said email dated 23.01.2024, submitted a representation to the Divisional Forest Officer on 24.01.2024 urging the Divisional Forest Officer for allotment of suitable plot of land to the petitioner within 5 kilometers from Bilaipur MPHC Hospital towards Lala on Goglacherra Bilaipur Road, for the purpose of setting up Retail Outlet Dealership under IOCL. However, the Respondent Authorities in the Forest Department did not consider the representation. Accordingly, the provisional selection of the petitioner was cancelled vide an email dated 17.04.2024.
8. The petitioner thereupon submitted a representation on 24.09.2025, without assigning any good reasons for not acting immediately after the email dated 17.04.2024. Subsequent thereto, as no response was received to the representation dated 24.09.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
9. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 submitted that the impugned email issued on 17.04.2024 ought not to be interfered with, taking into account that the petitioner did not submit Appendix-V as per Page No.# 8/10 format; did not submit Appendix-III from the landowner ( which in this case is the Forest Department); no clarification was received from the petitioner regarding land document and further that the petitioner had requested additional time but the policy of the respondents does not permit the same.
10. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and had also perused the materials on record.
11. It is very pertinent to take note of that Clause 4 of the Brochure for Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlet Rules, 2023 (herein after referred to as 'the Brochure') stipulates the eligibility criteria for individual applicants as well as proprietorship/partnership. Sub-Clause (vi) of Clause 4 of the Brochure refers to the land. It is seen from a perusal of Sub-Clause
(vi) that the applicants have been classified into three different categories depending on the land so offered. Group 1 category are those applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location of the area either by way of ownership or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years, 11 months, or as advertised by the OMC. Group 2 are those 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 and Group 3 are those applicants who have not offered the land in their application. It is also relevant to observe that Group 3 would be Page No.# 9/10 only applicable for locations advertised under SC/ST category.
12. From the materials on record, it would be apparently clear that the petitioner neither has a suitable piece of land in the advertised location nor had a long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years, 11 months, which is the requirement to come within the ambit of Group 1.
13. Now, let this Court take note of as to whether the petitioner would come within the ambit of Group 2. For coming within the ambit of the Group 2, the petitioner ought to have a firm offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years, 11 months. It is the admitted case of the petitioner as would be very much apparent from the representations submitted by the petitioner to the Divisional Forest Officer that the petitioner did not have a firm offer from the owner on the date on which the application was submitted. In fact as on today also, the petitioner does not have a firm offer for ownership or long term lease as required. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would come within the ambit of Group 2. The Respondent Authorities have duly taken note of the same as would be apparent from the email dated 23.01.2024 which has been quoted herein above and in the opinion this Court, the Respondent Authorities have also rightly rejected the candidature of the petitioner in the Group 2 category in as much as the petitioner Page No.# 10/10 admittedly did not have a firm offer from the owner of the land as on the last date of submission of the form.
14. Considering the above, this Court does not therefore find any good ground for entertaining the writ petition. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant