Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010233002025 2025:GAU-AS:15730 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6301/2025 BIPUL BANIKYA S/O- LATE SARBESWAR BANIKYA, VILL.- AHOM PATHAR, P.O.AND P.S.- SARABHOG, DIST- BAJALI, ASSAM. PIN-781317. 2: RAFIQUL ISLAM S/O- MANIR UDDIN VILL AND P.O.- MAJGAON P.S.- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM. PIN-78131 VERSUS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED(HPCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL) HPCL EASTERN ZONE 771 ANANDPUR 3RD FLOOR OPP. E.. YASS KOLKATA700107 WEST BENGAL 3:THE CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. HPCL EASTERN ZONE 771 ANANDPUR 3RD FLOOR OPP. E.. BYPASS KOLKATA-700107 Page No.# 2/5 4:THE REGIONAL MANAGER (RETAIL) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. HPCL GUWAHATI RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE H.D. COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR JANPATH ULUBARI GUWAHATI-07 ASSAM. 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAJALI DISTRICT PATHSALA ASSAM- 781325 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER SARUPETA REVENUE CIRCLE SARUPETA DISTRICT BAJALI ASSAM PIN-781318 7:SHRI HIRAK JYOTI NATH C/O SAYED ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE POTA P.O. AND P.S.- MAJGAON DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN-78131 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.A. Ahmed, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Chetia, Govt. Advocate Mr. S. Borthakur, Standing Counsel BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 19.11.2025 Page No.# 3/5 Heard Mr. H.A. Ahmed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. M. Chetia, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 2. Taking into account that the order which this Court proposes to pass, this Court dispenses with the service of notice upon the respondent No. 7. 3. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in permitting the respondent No. 7 to set up a retail outlet at a location within Majgaon village under the Barpeta District for the open category. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that they too had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and had been provisionally selected for the location between Bhawanipur and Simlaguri on the Bhawanipur- Simlaguri Road. It is the very case of the petitioners that though in the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1 for the retail outlet was within Majgaon village, but the respondent No. 7 has been permitted to set up the retail outlet beyond that location. 4. When the matter was listed before this Court on Page No.# 4/5 10.11.2025, this Court enquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, as to what right the petitioners had to make a challenge to the setting up of the retail outlet by the respondent No. 7 and in that regard permitted the petitioners to file an additional affidavit. 5. Pursuance thereto, an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners wherein it is mentioned that pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for appointment of retail outlet dealers in Assam, more particularly, between Bhawanipur and Simlaguri on Bhawanipur-Simlaguri Road, Barperta (Rural), the petitioners participated in the said bid process and pursuant to a draw of lots, the petitioners have been provisionally selected. 6. In the opinion of this Court, as on date, the petitioners’ right to set up the retail outlet has not crystallized so as to enable them to challenge the said retail outlet of the respondent No. 7. Additionally, this Court is also of the opinion that the petitioners herein being competitors of the respondent No. 7 cannot be said to be “persons aggrieved” for the purpose of initiating a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the instant proceedings, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Page No.# 5/5 7. However, on the facts of the case this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant