Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040002002024 2025:GAU-AP:191 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/72/2024 Nang Wontina Chowpoo D/o Chau Khamsen Chowpoo, resident of Village Phaneng, PO Piyong, PS Namsai, District Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh 790103. VERSUS The Union of India and 3 Ors represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001 2:Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of India Enterprise having its registered office at 17 Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai Maharashtra represented by its Chairman 3:The Chairman cum Managing Driector Age: 0 Occupation : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited a Govt of India Enterprise having its registered office at 17 Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai Maharashtra 400001 4:The Chief Regional Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Page No.# 2/6 Guwahati Retail Regional Office Rajiv Gandhi Path Betkuchi Near Maniram Dewan Trade Centre Kamrup District Guwahati Assam 78104 Advocate for the Petitioner : Khoda Tama, Sumit Chhetri,T Lampung,Takam Sunil,G Kamduk,Hinti Jeram Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, Tabit Tapak,DSGI BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Petitioners : Shri K Tama, Advocate. For the Respondents : Shri T Tapak, SC, HPCL & Ms. Yasmin Gao, Advocate on behalf of CGC. Date of Hearing : 05.02.2025. Date of Judgment : 05.02.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed in connection with the allotment of Dealership of Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL). 2. As per the facts projected, pursuant to an advertisement published on 28.06.2023 for the Page No.# 3/6 aforesaid Dealership, the petitioner, who claims to be eligible for the location against the Sl. No. 41, namely, “From Dawa Hotel 5th mile to Hotel Sange Tsering on NH 13”, had duly applied for the same. As regards the requirement of land, it is the case of the petitioner that he fell within the Group-1 as he had land of his own. Along with the application, the petitioner had submitted the certificate issued by the District Land & Revenue Settlement Officer (DLRSO) in which, the survey number was also mentioned. The petitioner contends that such certificate had to be submitted as the process for issuance of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) was still on and was not complete. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meantime, the LPC was also issued on 01.02.2024 which was accordingly submitted to the respondent authorities. However, vide the impugned communication dated 07.02.2024 made vide the email, the claim of the petitioner was rejected that he belongs to Group-1. The rejection was on the ground that the LPC was of a date subsequent to the last date of applying for the Dealership. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Heard Shri K Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri T Tapak, learned Standing Counsel, HPCL as well as Ms. Yasmin Gao, learned counsel appearing on instructions of the learned CGC. 5. Shri Tama, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue concerned is a trivial one as the impugned order has taken into consideration the LPC which was submitted at a subsequent point of time. He has submitted that irrespective of the issuance or submission of the LPC, there was no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner had owned the particular plot of land. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Certificate issued by the DLRSO, West Kameng District, dated 26.09.2023. In the said Certificate, the survey number was specifically written as No. BR 2464/59/01-05. Along with the said Certificate, Cadastral Map was also enclosed by which, the identity of the land could be definitely ascertained. He submits that it is only due to bona fide intention that the petitioner had subsequently submitted the LPC which was issued in the Page No.# 4/6 meantime on 01.02.2024 and therefore, there was no dispute or confusion raised on the identity of the land or the ownership of the petitioner over the land in question. Shri Tama, learned counsel has also referred to the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the Act of 2000), more specifically, Section 4(h) read with Section 6. As per Section 4(h), Survey and Settlement Officers fall within the classes of Revenue Officers and under Section 6, the powers of such Settlement Officers have been laid down. He submits that there is no dispute that the DLRSO is one of the prescribed Settlement Officers under the Act of 2000 and was vested with jurisdiction and powers to issue the Certificate. He reiterates that the LPC issued subsequently is only a fortification of the earlier certificate and would not be a factor to pass the impugned order on the ground that the LPC was of subsequent date. 6. On the other hand, Shri Tapak, learned Standing Counsel, HPCL has submitted that the Brochure accompanying the advertisement lays down the eligibility criteria. Under Clause 4 of the Brochure, such criteria has been laid down. Clause 4(vi) pertains to the aspect of land as per which, there are three groups, namely, Group-1, Group-2 and Group-3. Group-1 pertains to 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 as advertised by the Oil Marketing Company (OMC). Group-2 constitutes applicants having 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 and Group-3 constitutes applicants who have not offered land in the application. He has submitted that the documents in support of the application were to be submitted before the last date as mentioned in the advertisement. In the instant case, the last date of submission was 17.10.2023 whereas the LPC is admittedly dated 01.02.2024. He, therefore, submits that the impugned decision which has been conveyed vide email dated 07.02.2024 cannot be termed as unreasonable as the relevant factors have been taken into consideration. 7. Ms. Yasmin Gao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri M Kato, learned Dy. SGI has endorsed the submissions of Shri Tapak, learned Standing Counsel. Page No.# 5/6 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on record have also been carefully examined. 9. The advertisement which lays down the eligibility criteria under Clause 4 also contains the aspect of land. The petitioner herein had applied as an applicant under Group-1 as he claimed to have possessed land and in this regard, he had submitted a Certificate dated 26.09.2023 issued by the DLRSO, West Kameng District. It is not in dispute that the said Certificate was existing before the last date of submission which was 17.10.2023. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that the Certificate issued by the DLRSO would be sufficient to come to a conclusion of ownership as the said Officer is one of the Revenue Officers as per Section 4 of the Act of 2000. This Court has examined the said Certificate along with the Cadastral Map vis-a-vis the LPC which has been subsequently issued on 01.02.2024. The Certificate dated 26.09.2023 contains survey number, being No. BR 2464/59/01-05. The LPC which has been annexed to the writ petition also contains the same survey number. It is also not the case of the respondent-Corporation that there is any dispute with regard to the ownership or description/identification of the land concerned. The only objection is that the LPC is of a subsequent date. 11. Though in a given case, a subsequent document may not serve the purpose as it may not be within the requirement of the advertisement, in the instant case, so far as the claim of the petitioner as a Group-1 applicant is concerned, the same is duly fulfilled by the Certificate dated 26.09.2023 issued by the DLRSO and the fact that the same was submitted along with the application. As noted above, there is no dispute with regard to the identification or ownership of the land in question by the petitioner as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Act of 2000 recognises the DLRSO as a Revenue Officer and Section 6 thereof lays down the powers of such Officers as per which, a certificate of the present nature can be issued. Page No.# 6/6 12. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed that this Court while entertaining the writ petition had passed an order of status quo on 16.02.2024 which is continuing. 13. Considering the fact and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned decision as conveyed vide email dated 07.02.2024 is unsustainable in law and the petitioner has to be treated as an applicant under Group-1. 14. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. 15. The order of status quo stands merged with the final order and the respondent authorities are directed to bring the allotment process to a logical conclusion without any further delay. JUDGE Comparing Assistant