JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and A. Zahid, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the communication dated 24.8.2017, whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the plot of land offered by her is outside the advertised area i.e. the offered plot of land does not fall under the advertised block Gossaigaon. 3. The brief facts of the instant case is that the concerned respondent authorities issued an advertisement dated 24.10.2014 by which applications were invited from eligible candidates fulfilling eligibility for award of RO dealership. In the said advertisement which has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, there were various locations mentioned wherein the respondent authorities would be appointing Regular and Rural (Kissan Seva Kendra) retail outlet dealership in Assam. The instant writ petition pertains to a location at Bhowraguri, the details of which is stipulated at S. No. 72 of the said advertisement and the same for the sake of convenience is quoted herein-below: NOTICE FOR APPOINMENT OF REGULAR AND RURAL (KISSAN SEVA KENDRA) RETAIL OUTLET DEALERSHIPS IN ASSAM Indian Oil Corporation Limited proposes to appoint Regular Retail Outlet dealers (KISSAN SEVA KENDRA) I Assam as per following details. S. No. Name of Location Block Revenue District Type of No. RO Estimated Monthly Sales potential Category Type of site Minimum Dimension of the site (in metres) Finance to be arranged by the applicant (Rs. in lakhs) Mode of selection Fixed fees minimum bidding Amount (Rs. in lakhs) Security Deposit In lakhs Regular/ Rural MS HSD in KLS SC/SC-CC-1/SC/-CC-2/ST/ST/CC-1 CC/DC/CL/CFS Frontae Depth For eligibility Estimated Fund Required for development of infrastructure Draw of lots/bidding ST-CC-2/OBC/OBC/CC-1/OBC-CC-2/OBCOPEN-CC- 1/OPEN –CC-2 xxx xxx xxx 72 Bhowraguri Gossaigaon Kokrajhar Rural 48 ST CFS 25 N/A Lots N/A 0.50 4. From the said advertisement in so far as the instant writ petition is concerned the location was Bhowraguri under block Gossaigaon, Revenue District Kokrajhar. From the said advertisement in so far as the instant writ petition is concerned the location was Bhowraguri under block Gossaigaon, Revenue District Kokrajhar. As the petitioner is the owner and occupier of a plot of land admeasuring 1 bigha under Khatian No. 22 covered by Patta No. 48(old) and 90 (new), Dag No. 33 (old) and 54 (new) of Salitoli Class of village Garjan Part-II, under Bhowraguri Police Outpost within Gossaigaon Revenue Circle the petitioner applied for the said dealership. Thereupon after submission of her bid, as contended by the petitioner, the Land Evaluation Committee visited the site offered by the petitioner for Retail Outlet dealership at Bhowraguri and confirmed the eligibility and suitability of the location of the plot of land. The petitioner also following the advice of the committee procured a certificate dated 30.7.2016 from the Office of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gossaigaon which as per the petitioner would reveal that the land offered by the petitioner is located at Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Revenue Circle and the said certificate was also submitted by the petitioner to the respondent No. 4 vide a communication dated 1.8.2016. Thereafter, as the petitioner contends that to the utter surprise a communication dated 24.8.2017 was received by the petitioner wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner’s bid has not been found to be eligible for the Retail Outlet dealership as the plot of land offered by the petitioner is outside the advertised area i.e. the offered land does not fall under the advertised Block Gossaigaon. In the said communication, it was also mentioned that if the petitioner was aggrieved against the rejection of her candidature he may file a representation within 10 days from the date of the said letter. Thereupon the petitioner on 4.9.2017 filed a representation before the respondent No. 4 contending inter-alia that the decision taken that the land of the petitioner does not fall under the advertised block Gossaigaon is perverse in view of the certificate dated 30.7.2016 and that the concerned IOC Field Officer upon visit to the plot of land offered by the petitioner confirmed the eligibility and suitability of the location of the plot of land. Thereupon as the concerned respondent authorities did not act on the representation filed by the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the communication dated 24.8.2017 and also for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to award the Retail Outlet dealership to the petitioner at the location the petitioner had submitted along with all consequential benefits. The petitioner also had filed an additional affidavit on 18.12.2021 wherein the petitioner enclosed a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Kasugaon Development Block certifying that Gossaigaon Development Block does not fall within Bhowraguri location except the bazaar area which is a completely government land. 5. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 had filed a joint affidavit in opposition wherein it supported the decision taken by the respondent authorities to reject the bid of the petitioner. It was the specific stand taken in the affidavit in opposition that as per the advertisement, the land offered by a candidate should be within the Gossaigaon Development Block and not Gossaigaon Revenue Circle and as such the rejection of the bid of the petitioner made as per the advertised criteria, as the land offered by the petitioner is not within the area of the Gossaigaon Development Block. To the said affidavit in opposition a communication dated 3rd of November, 2016 issued by the Block Development Officer, Gossaigaon Development Block was enclosed wherein it was mentioned that the Gorjan Pt. II (Garjan Pt. II) village does not fall under Gossaigaon Development Block . The petitioner also filed an affidavit in reply to the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 stating inter-alia that the decision taken by the respondent authorities was completely erroneous on the ground that it was apparent from the revenue records that Gossaigaon Development Block does not fall within Bhowraguri location except the bazaar area and as such the action of the respondent authorities to reject the bid of the petitioner was nothing but a mala fide action on the part of the respondents to favor a blue eyed boy. It was also observed that from a perusal of the brochure which is enclosed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition and more particularly to Clause No. 22 therein, there was no mention whatsoever about the block in the tabular format and what has been mentioned therein is the name of the location and the Revenue district. 6. Pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition on 14.9.2017 this Court though permitted the respondents to go ahead with the draw of lots but the dealership was directed not to be awarded in favor of any third party without obtaining the leave of the Court and the said interim order continues till date. This Court vide an order dated 16.12.2021 after taking into consideration the dispute involved as to whether the land of the petitioner falls within the Gossaigaon Development Block directed the Standing Counsel, Revenue, Mr. P.S. Deka to obtain instruction as to whether the land offered by the petitioner falls under the Gossaigaon Block in the district of Kokrajhar. Pursuant thereto vide another order dated 10.1.2022 passed by this Court, Mr. P.S. Deka the learned Standing Counsel was requested to obtain the said instruction thereby fixing the matter today. Mr. Deka produced the instruction along with the communication issued by the Circle Officer, Gossaigaon Revenue Circle to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar dated 17th of January, 2022. The contents of the said communication dated 17.1.2022 is quoted herein-below: “GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFFICE OF THE CIRCLE OFFICER NO. GGC-33/98/92 Dated: Gossaigaon the 17th January 2022 To, The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Kokrajhar Subject: Regarding submission of information about land status and position of the land in respect of W.P. (C) No. 5693/2017, Smt. Kannaki Brahma Basumatary vs. IOC Ltd. and Others. Ref: Your Office Letter No. KRS-3/2021/170 dated 17.01.2022. Sir, “With reference to the subject cited above, I have the honour to furnish herewith the relevant status of land measuring 25 B-03K-07L under Dag No. 50. 12 B-03K-02L under Dag No. 54 and OOB-03K-17L under Dag Non. 86 Total land measuring 39 B-00K-06L covered by P. Patta No. 90 of Village Gorjan Part-II under Howraguri Dihi Mouza is recorded in the name of (1) Sri. Subhash Brahma S/o Debendra Nath Brahma (2) Kamaleswari Narzary W/o Late Baneswar Narzary (3) Sarada Nraahma D/o Late Jogendra Narzary (4) Kannaki Brahma Basumatary W/o Amitabh Basumatary (5) Nareswar Brahma S/o Maneswar Brahma as Ejmali. Subhash Brahma S/o Debendra Nath Brahma (2) Kamaleswari Narzary W/o Late Baneswar Narzary (3) Sarada Nraahma D/o Late Jogendra Narzary (4) Kannaki Brahma Basumatary W/o Amitabh Basumatary (5) Nareswar Brahma S/o Maneswar Brahma as Ejmali. It is further mentioned here that the above mentioned Dags fall under Kachugaon Development Block. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action.” The said instruction produced by Mr. P.S. Deka is kept on record and marked with the Letter-X. 7. In the backdrop of the above, it is relevant to take into consideration the contentions of the parties before this Court. Mr. A. Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the land offered by the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement falls within the Gossaigaon Revenue Circle as would be apparent from Annexure-5 to the writ petition which is the certificate issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Gossaigaon Revenue Circle stating inter-alia that the land measuring 12 bighas 3 kathas 2 lechas under Khatian No. 22 covered by Patta No. 48 (old) and 90 (new), Dag No. 33 (old) and 54 (new), Salitoli Class and Gorjan Part-II DIHI, Bhowraguri Police Outpost Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Revenue Circle is recorded in the name of Sri Subhash Ch. Brahma and out of the said land a plot of land measuring 1 bigha 0 katha 0 lecha is also recorded in the name of the petitioner. He further submits that the certificate enclosed as Annexure-1 to the additional affidavit which is a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Kachugaon Development Block clearly indicates that Gossaigaon Development Block does not fall within Bhowraguri location except the bazaar area which is completely Government land. On the basis of the two certificates the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent/IOCL authorities intends to setup a retail outlet at Bhawraguri location, it cannot be in the Gossaigaon Development Block as the land at Bhowraguri location which falls within the Gossaigaon Development Block is the bazaar area which is completely a Government land. He further submits that a perusal of Clause 22 of the Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets of the respondent IOCL authorities it would clearly go to show that the table in Clause-22 do not contain any stipulation as regards Block. He further submits that a perusal of Clause 22 of the Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets of the respondent IOCL authorities it would clearly go to show that the table in Clause-22 do not contain any stipulation as regards Block. What is contained therein, as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is the name of the location and the Revenue District. He therefore, submits that it is the established principle of law as has been held by various courts including Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports Punjab and Others, MANU/PH/0325/1999 that the respondent authorities cannot deviate from the brochure. 8. On the other hand, Mr. A. Zahid, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent IOCL authority submits that the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Gossaigaon Development Block enclosed as Annexure R-1 to the affidavit-in-opposition categorically states that Gorjan Pt. II (Garjan Part-II) village does not fall under the Gossaigaon Development Block and it is on the basis thereof the respondent authorities have rejected the candidature of the petitioner as the land which has been offered by the petitioner is not in the location as advertised. He submits that the requirement of the respondent authorities, as in the present case, is to have a retail outlet at Gossaigaon Development Block and the petitioner cannot impose upon the respondent authorities to accept a particular plot of land which does not fall within the Gossaigaon Development Block. He further submits that the communication dated 17.1.2022 which has been quoted herein above would go to show that the land offered by the petitioner falls under Kachugaon Development Block and as such the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He further submits that the communication dated 17.1.2022 which has been quoted herein above would go to show that the land offered by the petitioner falls under Kachugaon Development Block and as such the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. As regards the submission made by the petitioner that the table mentioned in Clause 22 does not indicate the block but only indicates the location as well as the Revenue District, he submits that the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived as the same has been made without taking into consideration sub-clause (1) of Clause 22 which categorically mentions that the details pertaining to the location where the Corporation proposes to appoint dealers will be provided in the advertisement and in the advertisement it has been categorically mentioned that it has to be in the Gossaigaon Development Block. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. From the materials on record and the contentions raised by the counsel for the respective parties before this Court the question which needs to be looked into is as to what was the requirement as per the advertisement of the land to be offered. The above quoted table in so far as the location in respect to the instant proceedings is concerned goes to show that the name of the location was Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Block of Kokrajhar Revenue District. 10. A reading of sub-clause (1) of Clause 22 of the brochure categorically goes to show that the location where the Corporation proposes to appoint dealers would be provided in the advertisement and under such circumstances Clause 22 has to be read with the advertisement and upon reading both the advertisement as well as Clause 22 conjointly, it transpires that the location would be at Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Block within the Revenue District of Kokrajhar. 11. The next question therefore arises as to whether the land offered by the petitioner falls within the location as advertised by the respondent IOCL authority. Annexure-5 is a certificate issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer stating inter-alia that the land offered by the petitioner falls within the village Gorjan Part-II, Dihi, Bhowraguri police outpost Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Revenue Circle. The said certificate would not show in any manner as to whether the land falls within the Gossaigaon Development Block. Annexure-5 is a certificate issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer stating inter-alia that the land offered by the petitioner falls within the village Gorjan Part-II, Dihi, Bhowraguri police outpost Bhowraguri under Gossaigaon Revenue Circle. The said certificate would not show in any manner as to whether the land falls within the Gossaigaon Development Block. The certificate enclosed as Annexure-1 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and cannot be taken into consideration primarily on the ground that the Block Development Officer, Kachugaon Development Block certifies what falls in Gossaigaon Development Block. Had the Block Officer, Gossaigaon Development Block would have certified, the matter would have been appreciated differently. 12. On the other hand, the certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Gosssaigaon categorically mentions that Gorjan Pt. II (Garjan Part-II) village does not fall under Gossaigaon Development Block and the land in question as certified by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) categorically shows that the land falls within Gorjan Pt. II village. To remove the said confusion this Court vide order dated 16/12/2021 taking into consideration that the Block Development Officer is not a Revenue Authority and therefore, the revenue records available in the concerned revenue office should have been the basis for deciding as to whether the land offered by the petitioner falls within the area advertised or not and accordingly directed the Standing Counsel, Revenue Department to obtain instruction as to where the land offered by the petitioner is situated. Accordingly, when the instant matter is being taken up today, Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Standing Counsel has placed the communication dated 17.01.2022 which has been quoted hereinabove wherein it categorically goes to show that the land which was offered by the petitioner falls under the Kachugaon Development Block. Consequently, in view of the above, it is therefore clear that the land offered by the petitioner does not fall as per the advertised criteria of the location. 13. Now therefore the next question which arises is as to whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the respondent authorities to accept the candidature of the petitioner in respect to a land which on the basis of the materials do not fall within the advertised location criteria. 13. Now therefore the next question which arises is as to whether this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can direct the respondent authorities to accept the candidature of the petitioner in respect to a land which on the basis of the materials do not fall within the advertised location criteria. This Court is of the opinion that such direction cannot be issued in as much as it is absolutely within the policy and the discretion of the authority concerned where to setup a retail or rural outlet as per the advertisement. Though an allegation has been made to the effect that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is in order to favor some blue eyed boy of the respondent IOCL authority but the said allegation is without any material particulars. It is also not the case of the petitioner as could be seen from the writ petition that the respondent authorities had accepted the candidature of other candidates whose land does not fall within the Gossaigaon Development Block. Consequently the writ petition is devoid of any merits. 14. As a corollary to the above observations, the instant writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. The respondent authorities shall be at liberty to go ahead with the tender process, if so advised.