Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 860 (GAU)

Shichaba, S/o Shri Imnayanglu v. Union Of India

2024-06-13

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2024
JUDGMENT : The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication dated 22.02.2019 as well as the communication dated 27.03.2019 issued by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) 2. The Indian Oil Corporation (herein after referred to as ‘the respondent Corporation’) had issued an advertisement in their website about the appointment of retail outlet dealerships in the State of Nagaland. On the same date, the said advertisement was also published in the local newspapers. In terms with the said advertisement dated 25.11.2018, the applications were to be submitted on or before 25.12.2018. The present writ petition pertains to the location on Manja-Dimapur Road on NH29 from Nagaland Gate within 2 kms. towards St. John’s College. 3. The petitioner submitted his application on 25.12.2018. In doing so, the petitioner offered a plot of land at Indisen Village, Dimapur, Nagaland vide village Patta No.429 dated 25.06.2015 bearing registered No.322/15 under in Indisen Village Council situated at Manja-Dimapur Road on NH29. It was the requirement as per the brochure for selection for retail outlets of respondent Corporation that at the time of submission of the application, various documents were required to be submitted. Amongst the various documents, one document was a notarized affidavit by the applicant as per Appendix-X, A/XB (standard affidavit), as applicable and the other document was the Appendix-IIIB (Advocate’s letter) along with Appendix-IIIA (for offer of land), if applicable. Admittedly, the petitioner submitted the said affidavit-cum-declaration as well as the Advocate’s certificate. Both were dated 22.12.2018. 4. On 19.01.2019, the respondent No.4 vide an email informed the petitioner that the petitioner had qualified for the draw of lots for selection of the retail outlet dealership and requested the petitioner to be present personally with the Photo Identity Card issued by any Government Department on 1st of February, 2019 at 1300 hours. Subsequent thereto, vide another email dated 02.02.2019, the respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that he has been selected on draw of lots for award of retail outlet dealership on the Manja-Dimapur Road on NH29 from Nagaland Gate within 2 kms. towards St. John’s College, District-Dimapur under the ST category advertised on 25.11.2018. Subsequent thereto, vide another email dated 02.02.2019, the respondent No.4 informed the petitioner that he has been selected on draw of lots for award of retail outlet dealership on the Manja-Dimapur Road on NH29 from Nagaland Gate within 2 kms. towards St. John’s College, District-Dimapur under the ST category advertised on 25.11.2018. On the same date, the respondent No.4 had also informed the petitioner to remit online Rs.30,000/- towards security deposit and submit a set of documents specified in the email within 10 days in the Office of the respondent No.4 for processing the application for award of retail outlet dealership at Manja-Dimapur Road on NH29 from Nagaland gate within 2 kms. towards St. John’s College, District-Dimapur under the ST category. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 04.02.2019, the petitioner lost the affidavit-cum-declaration executed before the Notary Public, Nagaland dated 22.12.2018 as well as the search report issued by the Advocate, namely, Shri Kimonthung Lotha whereby it was certified by the concerned Advocate that the petitioner offer would fall within the ambit of Group-1. In that regard, the petitioner had also filed an FIR before the Mokokchung Police Station-II which was duly entered as GD Entry No.02/19 dated 05.02.2019. The petitioner therefore again came back to Dimapur on 06.02.2019 and tried to contact Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate to obtain and authenticate the copy of the affidavit-cum- declaration dated 22.12.2018 and the legal report dated 22.12.2018. However, as Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate was reported to be out of station and at Wokha, the petitioner could not get the authenticated copy of the lost affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2019 and the legal report dated 22.12.2018. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner as a matter of abundant caution executed another affidavit-cum-declaration on 07.02.2019 before another Notary Public at Dimapur and obtained another legal report dated 08.02.2019 from one Ms. Sudipta Acharjee, Advocate. 6. The petitioner thereupon submitted the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 07.02.2019 as well as the legal report dated 08.02.2019 in original before the respondent Corporation. However, the respondent Corporation vide the email dated 02.02.2019 informed the petitioner that the land documents submitted by the petitioner were not valid for considering the offered land under Group-1, and accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner was relegated to Group-3 as per the guidelines. 7. However, the respondent Corporation vide the email dated 02.02.2019 informed the petitioner that the land documents submitted by the petitioner were not valid for considering the offered land under Group-1, and accordingly, the candidature of the petitioner was relegated to Group-3 as per the guidelines. 7. The petitioner on coming to learn about the said email, submitted a communication on 25.02.2019 stating inter-alia that the earlier legal report dated 22.12.2018 as well as the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2019 were lost for which an FIR was filed, and as such, the petitioner therefore requested the Head of the Division, Tinsukia Divisional Office to consider his affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 07.02.2019 as well as the legal report dated 08.02.2019 issued by the Advocate. 8. The respondent authorities vide the communication dated 27.03.2019 informed the petitioner that the Appendix-IIIB which is the Advocate’s letter is of the date later than the date of the application which is treated as non-rectifiable. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner again on 10.04.2019 submitted the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018 which was attested on 08.04.2019 by the Notary Public Shri Kimonthung Lotha. In addition to that, the legal report which was submitted by Shri Kimonthung Lotha on 22.12.2018 was again certified by Shri Kimonthung Lotha on 08.04.2019. However, the same was not considered and the respondents fixed a date for draw of lots on 18th of July, 2019 and as such, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 9. This Court vide an order dated 16.07.2019 issued notice and meanwhile restrained the respondents from drawing fresh lots on 18.07.2019 at 12:15 PM until further order. The said stay order continued. Various pleadings have been filed in the meantime which this Court has duly considered. 10. Mr. C. D. Rungsung, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner due to the reason beyond his control lost the originals of affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018 as well as the legal report issued by Shri Kimonthung Lotha on 22.12.2018. Under such circumstances, when the originals were sought for, the petitioner furnished a fresh affidavit-cum-declaration dated 07.02.2019 and another legal report of another Advocate dated 08.02.2019. He submitted that the certificate as well as the affidavit are only to the effect that the petitioner falls in Group-1 in as much as the petitioner had the original land documents. Under such circumstances, when the originals were sought for, the petitioner furnished a fresh affidavit-cum-declaration dated 07.02.2019 and another legal report of another Advocate dated 08.02.2019. He submitted that the certificate as well as the affidavit are only to the effect that the petitioner falls in Group-1 in as much as the petitioner had the original land documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when this aspect of the matter was brought to the notice of the authorities, the authorities have relegated the petitioner to Group-3 as if the petitioner did not offer any land. 11. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner even tried to submit another copy of the affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 22.12.2018 which was attested by the Notary dated 08.04.2019 as well as a attested copy of the photocopy of the legal report dated 22.12.2018 which was also attested on 08.04.2019. However, the respondent authorities did not take into consideration the said aspect of the matter. He therefore submits that the action on the part of the respondent authorities are arbitrary and also discriminatory for which the relief which has been sought for ought to be granted. 12. On the other hand, Mr. N. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the affidavit-cum-declaration as well as the legal report of the Advocate which was submitted in original pursuant to the email dated 02.02.2019 were different affidavit-cum- declaration from that of the one submitted earlier. He further submitted that the legal report was also different. Drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-F and Annexure-F1, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the affidavit-cum-declaration as well as the legal report were both dated 22.12.2018. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that these were the documents which were submitted at the time of submission of application on 25.12.2018. Further drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-G and Annexure-G1, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that when the originals of the affidavit-cum-declaration and the legal report of the Advocate, both dated 22.12.2018 was directed to be placed before the respondent Corporation, the petitioner submitted the originals of the documents which have been enclosed as Annexure-G and Anenxure-G1 which were dated 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 respectively. He therefore submitted that it is under such circumstances, the communication dated 22.02.2019 was issued. 13. This Court while hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation made a specific query to the learned counsel as to whether from a perusal of the Annexure-F and F1 with Annexure-G and G1, the land which was offered by the petitioner is the same or not. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation fairly submitted that a perusal of the Annexure-F1 and Annexure-G1, it reveals that the land so offered by the petitioner was one and the same. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation further submitted that the respondent authorities are not adverse to accepting the of the affidavit- cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018 as well as the legal report issued by Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate dated 22.12.2018 provided Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate affirms by way of an affidavit that he had duly issued the search report dated 22.12.2019 and the contents of the photocopy of the search report dated 22.12.2018 are correct. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation further submitted that in the said affidavit, Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate should also affirm that the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018 was executed by the petitioner before him. 14. Mr. C. D. Rungsung, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be in a position to produce the said affidavit as has been sought for by the respondent Corporation. However, he submits that some time may be granted for that. 15. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent Corporation. The dispute involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the petitioner should be placed in Group-1 or the respondent Corporation was justified in placing the petitioner in Group-3. 16. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to observe that the perusal of the advertisement enclosed to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that the mode of selection of the retail outlet dealer in respect to the location in question would be by draw of lots. It is further relevant to take note of that there is a brochure for selection of dealers of the respondent Corporation which mandates the manner in which the selection is to be carried out. It is further relevant to take note of that there is a brochure for selection of dealers of the respondent Corporation which mandates the manner in which the selection is to be carried out. For the purpose of carrying out the mode of selection by draw of lots, the respondent Corporation in their brochure have categorized three categories of the applicants. Group-1 are those applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or advertised in the OMC. Group-2 are those applicants having a 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 per advertised OMC. Group-3 are those applicants who have not offered land in the application. 17. It is further relevant to mention that as per the brochure, if there are any applicants falling within Group-1, the selection would be carried out by draw of lots amongst them. If there is no applicant coming within the ambit of Group-1 and there are applicants falling under Group-2, the selection in respect to those applicants coming under Group-2 shall be conducted through draw of lots. However, if there are no applicants in Group-1 or Group-2 then such selection can be carried out amongst any or all the applicants by the mode of drawing of lots. 18. Taking into account the above, this Court upon perusal of the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018, the opinion dated 22.12.2018 of Shri Kimonthung Lotha as well as the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 07.02.2019 and the opinion dated 08.02.2019, is of the opinion that the land which was offered by the petitioner appears to be the same land. It is on account of the opinion dated 22.12.2018 of Shri Kimonthung Lotha as well as affidavit-cum- declaration dated 22.12.2018 submitted initially having been lost, the petitioner had submitted affidavit-cum-declaration dated 07.02.2019 and the opinion dated 08.02.2019. 19. It is on account of the opinion dated 22.12.2018 of Shri Kimonthung Lotha as well as affidavit-cum- declaration dated 22.12.2018 submitted initially having been lost, the petitioner had submitted affidavit-cum-declaration dated 07.02.2019 and the opinion dated 08.02.2019. 19. Taking into account that the respondents are not adverse to accepting an affidavit in the form and manner already stated herein above and the petitioner has expressed his willingness to submit an affidavit to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner herein is granted 15 (fifteen) days from today for submitting the affidavit and in the circumstance, such affidavit is filed within 15 (fifteen) days from today, the respondent authorities shall consider the opinion dated 22.12.2018 as well as the affidavit-cum- declaration dated 22.12.2018 as if the originals have been submitted. 20. This Court further directs that the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner along with other applicants in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the brochure for selection of regular and rural retail outlet dealership dated 24.11.2018. 21. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to submit an affidavit as directed above within 15 days from the date of the instant order to the respondent No.4, the respondent Corporation shall be at liberty to carry out the selection in accordance with its guidelines. 22. The interim order passed earlier no longer survives in view of the above adjudication. 23. With the above observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of.