1. Heard Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for award of retail outlet dealership at Borhat in the district of Charaideo under the open category which was advertised on 25.11.2018. The legality of the said rejection is being questioned in the instant proceedings on the ground that the same is contrary to the terms and conditions of the Brochure, for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets dated 24.11.2024 as well as the communications which were also issued from time to time by the concerned respondent authorities. To ascertain the legality and the validity of the impugned communication dated 09.08.2023, it is relevant to take note of the facts in brief which are narrated infra.
3. The respondent Corporation in order to appoint retail outlet dealers in 462 rural locations had issued an advertisement on 25.11.2018. In the instant proceedings, this Court is concerned with the location of Borhat in the district of Charaideo which is at Sl. No.365 of the advertisement under the open category. The petitioner who was interested submitted his application on 24.12.2018 and applied it in the Group-1 category. In the said application, the petitioner offered a plot of land admeasuring 625 square meters covered by Dag No.296 of PP No.120 situated at village-Chutiakari, P.O.- Borhat and in the district of Charaideo, Assam.
4. At this stage, it is very relevant to take note of the manner in which the Respondent Corporation categorizes the applications. This aspect of the matter could be seen in Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure. The applicants as per the Brochure are classified into three groups based upon the land offered or the land not offered by them in the application form. Group-1 are those applicants who have a suitable plot of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months or as advertised by 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 advertised by the OMC.
5. The applicants in Group-3 are those who have not offered land in the application. For the purpose of processing these applications in the three categories above mentioned, it is relevant to mention that applications under Group-3 would be processed/ advised to offer land only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant gets selected under Group-1 and Group- 2.
6. This Court finds it very relevant to take note of a portion of Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure which is reproduced herein under:-
4. (v) “…. In case land offered by all the applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 is found not sutabie/not meeting requirements, then these applicant/s under Group 1 & Group 2 along with applicants under Group 3 (who did not offer land along with application) would be advised by the OMCs to provide suitable land in the advertised location / stretch, within a per of 3 months from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them through SMS/e-mail. In case the applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the application would be rejected.”
7. From the above quoted portion of Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure, it would be seen that in case land offered by all applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 is not found suitable/not meeting the requirements, then these applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 along with the applicants under Group-3 (who did not offer land along with the applications) would be advised by the OMC to provide suitable land in the advertised location/stretch within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the intimation letter to them through SMS/email. It is further mentioned that in case the applicants fail to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the laid down criteria, the applications would be rejected.
8. From the above, it would therefore be seen that an applicant has a liberty to apply in Group-1 and in doing so, he has to either own a plot of land/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months as on the date of the application.
The land which is being offered may meet or may not meet the criteria as set out by the OMC. In the circumstance, the land so offered does not meet the criteria, the said applicants could be relegated to Group-3. Similar is also the case in respect to Group-2.
9. At this stage, this Court also finds it relevant to take note of another Clause in the Brochure which has relevance to the above quoted portion of Clause 4 (v) of the Brochure. The said Clause is at Note 2. The said Note 2 is reproduced herein under:
Note 2
“In case of locations where the applicant has not offered the land in the application (Group 3) or if the offered land of all applicants under Group 1 & Group 2 got rejected due to not meeting the laid down criteria, then all such applicants shall be given an opportunity to offer land or alternate land (as the case may be) in the advertised location/stretch provided the applicant meet all other eligibility criteria.
A communication through SMS/e-mail would be sent to these applicants to offer land/alternate land within a period of 3 months from the date of offer letter.
On receipt of advice to offer land from OMCs the applicant should submit land offer online and indicate the category under which the land falls (Group 1 or Group 2) on the basis of the confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B). Upon
selection, the selected candidate would be required to submit all the relevant documents pertaining to the land offered along with consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix III A) and/or Power of Attorney (Registered), if applicable, along with confirmatory letter from an advocate (Appendix III B).
The applicants would be classified into two groups i.e. Group 1 & Group 2 based on the land offered by them.
In case the applicant(s) fail to offer alternate land within the specified period, the offer would be withdrawn and application rejected under intimation to the applicant(s) through SMS/e-mail.
Only one opportunity would be given to the applicant, either for offering land (if applicant has not offered any land along with application form) or for offering alternate land (if the land offered by the applicant is found to be not meeting the laid down criteria during Scrutiny/land evaluation/ rejection of land after selection, for applicants who have offered land along with the application)."
10. In the backdrop of the above, it is very relevant to take note of that though the petitioner herein had offered a plot of land admeasuring 695 square meters (1 bigha 1 katha), but during the site inspection carried out by the Land Evaluation Committee on 15.11.2021, it was found that the land which was offered by the petitioner did not meet the required norms, i.e. the offered land was not in an advertised area in as much as the land documents submitted showed that the land was at Chukiakari village, Mouza-Boruasali, District Charaideo. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was informed vide an email dated 17.11.2021 about the deficiency in the land so offered and further informing that the petitioner's candidature was found to be not eligible for Group-1. It was, however, mentioned that the petitioner’s candidature may be considered for selection along with Group-3 applicants as per the guidelines. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was informed vide a communication dated 01.12.2022 to provide an alternate land within 3 months in terms with Note 2. The petitioner thereupon offered another plot of land on 23.02.2023 through online mode and enclosed therewith an unregistered Lease Deed dated 03.01.2023. The records further reveal that on the basis of the said offer of alternate land, the application of the petitioner so submitted earlier stood modified.
11. It is further seen from the records that the petitioner along with others were considered amongst the Group-3 applicants and the draw of lots was conducted on 07.06.2023. In the said draw of lots, the petitioner was declared as selected, and thereupon, the petitioner was informed vide the communication dated 10.06.2023 that he has been declared as selected and the award/dealership was subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions of the Corporation in that regard. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner on 05.07.2023 was informed by the concerned respondent authorities that the petitioner had to submit the land document in support of ownership or long term lease to be submitted so as to ascertain the Group-1 category. The said land documents were to be submitted on or before 25.07.2023. It was also categorically mentioned in the communication dated 05.07.2023 that the petitioner’s candidature would be liable for rejection in case the petitioner failed to submit the specified details/documents within the stipulated time without any further notice.
12. In pursuance to the said communication, the petitioner duly submitted the documents pertaining to the alternative land on 20.07.2023. It is pertinent to mention that a land document which was submitted on 20.07.2023 was a registered Deed of Lease entered into by and between one Sultan Ahmed and the petitioner for lease of a particular plot of land admeasuring 2 kathas 7 lechas covered by Dag No.154 of Patta No.38 at village Luholia Gaon, Bruasali Mouza in the district of Charaideo, Assam. The said lease was for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 14.02.2023. On submission of the said document on 20.07.2023, the respondent authorities through the Head of its Divisional Office issued the impugned communication dated 09.08.2023 whereby the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the Deed of Lease submitted was registered on 20.07.2023 which is after the date of submission of the application for the alternative land submitted on 23.02.2023. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
13. The record reveals that upon filing of the instant writ petition, this Court vide an order dated 01.09.2023 issued notice and further observed that a matter of award of the retail outlet dealership at Borhat, district Charaideo advertised on 25.11.2018 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
14. Pursuant to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit on 31.08.2023 stating inter-alia that the petitioner submitted a notarized Lease Deed dated 03.01.2023 along with an affidavit dated 14.02.2023. However, the same was not accepted by the respondent authorities. It was also mentioned that the respondent authorities as per Clause 14 (E) (ix) of the Brochure vide an e-mail dated 05.07.2023 granted 21 days time to the petitioner till 25.07.2023 for rectifying the defect by submitting a registered Lease Deed. Immediately thereafter, on the very next day, i.e. on 06.07.2023, the petitioner applied for NOC before the concerned authority, and accordingly, on 11.07.2023 the petitioner was granted the NOC for registration of the Lease Deed. Thereafter on 20.07.2023, the Lease Deed was duly registered and the petitioner submitted the same within 25.07.2023 as directed by the respondent authorities to rectify the same. It was further mentioned that the petitioner submitted a revised application under Group-3 and the same was reflected on 23.02.2023.
15. To the writ petition as well as the additional affidavit, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent IOCL on 12.06.2024. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, the stand taken by the respondent authorities is that the selection procedure for subject location as per the advertisement and extant guidelines stipulates that the selection would be made through draw of lots. The draw of lots was held amongst all the eligible applicants under Group-1 category, i.e. the applicants who have a suitable piece of land in the advertised location/the area either by way of ownership on long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months. The draw of lots of the eligible applicants of Group-2 category, i.e. the applicants having firm offer for suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of 19 years 11 months was to be held only if there is no applicant under Group- 1 category or all the applicants of the Group-1 category have been disqualified or found not suitable or have withdrawn. It was further mentioned that if any one of the applicants in the category is disqualified, then re-draw of lots is held amongst the remaining candidates until a suitable candidate is found. The candidates who are rejected in Group-1 or Group-2 due to non- suitability of the land are given one more opportunity to give an alternate land in Group-3. In case there is no eligible candidates remaining in Group-2 also then the candidates in Group-3 are required to submit an alternate land and reapply through the online portal. It was further mentioned that initially the petitioner had offered a plot of land in Chutiakari Gaon, Charaideo, Assam covered by Dag No.296 of PP No.120. Pursuant to the selection of the petitioner in the draw of lots, a two member Land Evaluation Committee carried out the evaluation on 15.11.2021 wherein it was found that the land offered by the petitioner was found to be not in the advertised location. It was further mentioned that the petitioner’s candidature in the Group-1 category was therefore rejected and moved to the Group-3 category, i.e. the applicants who have not offered land in the applications. Subsequently, the petitioner along with other applicants under Group-1 were given an opportunity to offer alternate plot of land in the advertised location within a period of three months from the date of the offer letter from the Corporation. In the present case, there were no suitable candidates available in Group-1 and Group-2, and therefore, the petitioner was given one more opportunity along with other
candidates in Group-3.
16. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner thereupon offered an alternate plot of land on 23.02.2023. On the basis thereof, again a draw of lots was held on 07.06.2023 at the Guwahati Divisional Office from amongst the candidates of the Group-3 categories and the petitioner was again selected. The petitioner thereupon had submitted some documents on the 20.06.2023 at the Tinsukia Divisional Office, IOCL. On scrutiny of the application and the documents on 21.06.2023, it was observed that the alternate plot of land offered by the applicant belonged to a third party, i.e. the land was neither owned by the applicant nor his family members as per the definition given by the extant guidelines dated 24.11.2018. Accordingly, an e-mail dated 05.07.2023 was issued to the petitioner thereby asking the petitioner to submit supporting land documents/long term lease so as to ascertain the Group-1 category land. The petitioner thereupon submitted the registered Lease Deed dated 20.07.2023 wherein the lease was for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 14.02.2023. It was further mentioned that as the date of registration of the Lease Deed was admittedly after the date of submission of the alternate plot of land submitted online on 23.02.2023 which is against the extant provisions of the dealership selection procedure which prescribed that a land should be in ownership/long term lease by way of a registered Lease Deed with the applicant as on the date of the application, the impugned communication was issued thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner on 09.08.2023.
17. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
18. Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner after drawing the attention to the Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets dated 24.11.2018 submitted that as the petitioner was relegated to the Group-3 on the basis of the communication dated 17.11.2021, it would therefore imply that the petitioner had not submitted any land along with the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to Note 2 wherein it has been categorically mentioned that in case of locations where the applicants had not offered the land in the application or if the offered land of the applicants under Group-1 and Group-2 got rejected due to not meeting the laid down criteria, then all such applicants shall be given an opportunity to offer land or alternate land in the advertised location/stretch provided the applicant meets all other eligibility criteria. It is further mentioned that a communication through SMS/e-mail would be sent to those applicants who offer land on the alternate land within a period of three months from the date of the offer letter. Mr. B. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that an offer letter is only issued only after the draw of lots and in the instant case the petitioner was duly informed that he was selected in the draw of lots among the Group-3 candidates on 10.06.2023. The petitioner thereupon though submitted a notarized Lease Deed on the 20.06.2023, but the same was not accepted and the petitioner was given a further opportunity to submit a registered Lease Deed on or before 25.07.2023. Referring to the Note 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the requirement to submit the land/alternate land within three months from the date of the offer letter, and in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted on 20.07.2023 which is much prior even to the time permitted as per the communication dated 05.07.2023. He therefore submitted that the impugned communication so issued was not in accordance with the Brochure for selection of dealers for regular and rural retail outlets and a new yardstick was applied which was totally foreign to the said terms and conditions.
19. Per contra, Mr. M. K. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the IOCL submitted that although the petitioner was intimated on 17.11.2021 that the land so offered by the petitioner was not suitable taking into account that the said land was not in the advertised location, and as such, the petitioner was relegated to be considered amongst the Group-3 candidates, the petitioner was duly intimated vide the communication dated 01.12.2022 in terms with Note 2 of Clause 4 of the Brochure and thereby giving 90 days of time for the petitioner to submit the alternate land. The learned senior counsel for the IOCL submitted that in pursuance thereto, the petitioner availed this opportunity as mentioned in the third paragraph of Note 2 of Clause 4 of the Brochure and submitted an alternate land wherein it has been duly mentioned that the said land belongs to one Sultan Ahmed and he has registered long term lease more than 19 years 11 months. Thereupon, when the petitioner has been selected while conducting the draw of lots, the petitioner was duly intimated to produce the document and the petitioner produced only a notarized copy of a lease which was not in consonance with the provisions of Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. The respondent authority thereupon gave the petitioner further time to produce the documents which have been registered as stated in his amended application dated 14.02.2023 which was however not produced, rather a registered Lease Deed dated 20.07.2023 was produced which was not in terms with the amendment made to the application in consonance with paragraph No.3 of Note 2 of Clause 4 of the Brochure. He therefore submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any breach so alleged in the writ petition.
20. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the materials on record. From the materials on record as stated herein above, it is clear that the petitioner initially offered a land pursuant to the advertisement dated the 25.11.2018 which was not a suitable land taking into account that the said land was not situated in the advertised location. Thereupon, the petitioner was duly intimated on 17.11.2021 that the petitioner’s candidature as a Group-1 candidate was rejected and the petitioner was relegated to the position of Group-3. It is further seen that almost after one year, i.e. on 01.12.2022, the petitioner was given an offer to provide an alternate land within a period of three months in terms with paragraph No.2 of Note 2 of Clause 4 of the Brochure. The petitioner duly submitted the alternate land through online by making a modification to his original application. While doing so, the petitioner had categorically mentioned that the alternate land so offered was a land belonging to one Sultan Ahmed wherein the petitioner had a registered long term lease of a period of 19 years 11 months. On the basis of the said, the petitioner along with others who were in the Group-3 category were considered for selection by way of draw lots on 07.06.2023. The petitioner was duly intimated on 10.06.2023 that he was selected in the draw of lots and the petitioner was asked to submit the relevant documents. The petitioner submitted a notarized copy of the Lease Deed dated 14.02.2023 on 20.06.2023. This Court has duly perused the Lease Deed and under no circumstances it can be said that the said Lease Deed would have affected the property as mentioned therein taking into account the mandatory provisions of Sections 17 & 49 of the Registration Act, 1908.
21. Under such circumstances, the record further reveals that the petitioner was given an additional opportunity to provide the document as mentioned in the amended application of the petitioner. Instead of providing a registered Deed of Lease dated 14.02.2023, the petitioner submitted a registered Deed of Lease dated 27.06.2023. The respondent authorities have rejected the same and in the opinion of this Court has rightly done so taking into account the provisions of Note 2 and more particularly paragraph No.6 of Note 2 of Clause 4 of the Brochure.
22. Accordingly as this Court finds no merit in the instant writ petition, the writ petition stands dismissed.
