Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010148322025 2025:GAU-AS:9712 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4129/2025 DIPAK KUMAR DAS S/O- LATE PREMESWAR DAS, VILL.- DHALPUKHURI, P.O. PODUMPUKHURI, P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI, ASSAM, PIN- 782435. VERSUS BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORIAL MANAGER, 1ST FLOOR, NEXIA PARK, GMCH ROAD, CHRISTIAN BASTI, GUWAHATI-781005. 2:BIKRAM CHANDRA DAS S/O- LATE BECHARAM DAS VILL.- ITAKHOLA P.O. PADUMPUKHURI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435. 3:MILAN CHANDRA DAS S/O- LATE HARALAL DAS VILL.- ITAKHOLA P.O. PADUMPUKHURI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSAM PIN- 782435. 4:SANJOY MAJUMDAR S/O- SRI HORI MOJUMDAR VILL.- DAKHIN JAMUHANDAL P.O. PADUMPUKHURI P.S. AND DIST. HOJAI ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 PIN- 782435. 5:REKHA MAHATO W/O- MUNIRKA MAHATO NAYA BASTI W/NO. 46 P.O. AND P.S. PRADHAN NAGAR DIST. DARJEELING WEST BENGAL Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. A Boro Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr. S Borthakur B E F O R E HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER 28.07.2025 Heard Mr. A Boro, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 2. The petitioner herein applied in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 28.06.2023 for allotment of a retail outlet at Dhalpukhuri between Dhalpukhuri Dasgaon Shiv Mandir Tiniali and Sikarigate Bazar (Not on NH/SH). 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondent Nos.3 and 5 could not have applied in terms with category 1 and, as such, taking into consideration that they were included within the draw of lots pertaining to Page No.# 3/3 category 1, the chance of the petitioner to be selected has been affected. 4. Mr. S Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that in the draw of lots, the respondent No.2 had been declared to be the winner and if the respondent No.2 is not in a position to provide the necessary documents, there would be a fresh draw of lots. 5. This Court has given a consideration to the submissions and taking into account that the respondent No.2 had been declared to be a winner in the draw of lots and there being no allegation that the respondent No.2 is not eligible to apply in the category 1, in the opinion of this Court, the instant writ petition is misconceived. 6. Accordingly, this Court dismisses the instant writ petition. 7. It is, however, observed that in the circumstance, the respondent No.2 does not satisfy his candidature as the category 1 candidate, it shall not be a bar on the part of the petitioner to again approach this Court, if so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant