Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 571 (GAU)

Khirod Bhuyan v. State of Assam & 6 Ors.

2016-06-20

AJIT SINGH, SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
Ajit Singh; CJ.:-- 1. Mr. PP Baruah & Mr. R Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr.MK Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3; Mr. S.K. Chakravorty, learned counsel for respondent No. 7; Mrs. B. Goyal, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this High Court whereby he has allowed WP(C) No. 917/2012 of Respondent No. 7. 5. In response to the advertisement published by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (in short “IOC”), the appellant as well as Respondent No. 7 along with others applied for the Kishan Sewa Kendra Dealership for distribution of Diesel Lubricants Oil and agricultural materials at Kalabari area of Sonitpur District. The authorities of IOC, after examining the case of all the applicants, empanelled respondent No. 7 at Serial No. 1 and the appellant at Serial No. 2 in the merit list. But, soon thereafter, IOC, vide communication dated 2.1.2012, cancelled the candidature of appellant on the ground that he had submitted wrong information in respect of the land offered by him and he failed to show the originals pertaining to the balance sheet for the period 2006-2007. The IOC thereupon offered the dealership to the appellant. Aggrieved, respondent No. 7 filed WP(C) No. 917/2012 and explained that whatever information was given to him by the Revenue Department was submitted to the IOC and for the mistake on the part of Revenue Department, he cannot be made to suffer. The appellant also submitted that he was ready to submit the originals whenever the officers of IOC would ask for the same. The learned Single Judge agreed with the submission of Respondent No. 7 and by the impugned order has allowed his writ petition. It is in this background, the appellant, whose name appeared at Serial No. 2 of the merit list, has filed the present appeal. 6. It is to be noted that against the same impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, even IOC had filed WA No. 264/2013 which has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 2.9.2013 by another Division Bench of this High Court. 6. It is to be noted that against the same impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, even IOC had filed WA No. 264/2013 which has been dismissed on merits vide order dated 2.9.2013 by another Division Bench of this High Court. The Division Bench has already held that there was no lapse on the part of Respondent No. 7, which warranted cancellation of his dealership by the IOC. We also find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench, which even otherwise is binding on us. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.