Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040002312024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/79/2024 Nabam Bobita Techi Wife of Techi Ayum, Nonpu Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The Union of India and 4 Ors represented by the Secretary, Ministry of petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi 110001 2:Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of India Enterprise having its registered office at Bharat Bhavan 4 and 6 Currimbhoy Road Ballard Estate Mumbai 400001 Maharashtra represented by its Managing Director 3:The Managing Dirctor Age: 0 Occupation : Bharat petroleum Corporation Limited 12 E and F Maker Towers Cuffe Parades Post Box No.19949 Mumbai 400005 Maharashtra 4:The Project Manager Age: 0 Occupation : State Head (Retail) North East at Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Guwahati 1st Floor Nexia Park GMCH Road Page No.# 2/6 Christian Basti Guwahati Kamrup Metropolitan District Assam 781005 5:The Territory Manager (Retail) Age: 0 Occupation : Head of Territory Office Guwahati 1st Floor Nexia Park GMCH Road Christian Basti Guwahati Kamrup Metropolitan District Assam 781005 6:Techi Ayum Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Late Techi Barn Emchi Village PO and PS Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Prades Advocate for the Petitioner : Regum Nabam, 1 N Saha,A Linggi,Nending Kago Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, Rinchin Ledo Thungon,Samrat Saha Roy,DSGI BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 27.08.2025 Heard Mr. R Nabam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M Kato, learned DSGI for the respondent No. 1. 2. The writ petition is filed by the petitioner putting to challenge the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner for award of Retail Outlet Dealership by the respondent-Corporation on NH-13 in the district of Papum Pare, Arunachal Page No.# 3/6 Pradesh pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2023. 3. In response to the advertisement issued by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation”) published a notice in the local newspaper having circulated in the State of Arunachal Pradesh inviting appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership. In response to the said advertisement, the petitioner was submitted her application along with all necessary documents. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner that she has entered into a lease agreement with a land owner and have executed a proper lease deed for a plot of land which is offered as a location for establishment of the Rural Retail Dealership to be appointed by the respondent Corporation. 5. The petitioner completed all the procedure and was informed that the petitioner was shortlisted for drawing of Lots by the respondent company. An amount of Rs. 50,000/- was also deposited for selection of the Retail Outlet Dealership. Subsequent thereto, by communication dated 17.01.2024, the petitioner was informed that she was not selected for the reasons mentioned in the said communication. The reasons specified are that the lease agreement was not registered and hence not considered under the Group-1 category and that the details of the land document mentioned in the application have not been submitted. 6. In response to that, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondent company and explained that while uploading the necessary documents along with the application, inadvertently Notarized copy came to be uploaded instead of the registered lease deed. The said registered lease deed has been subsequently uploaded. However, since no communication was Page No.# 4/6 forthcoming, the petitioner submitted another representation being representation dated 13.02.2024. Meanwhile the petitioner came to be informed that the private respondent as one of the candidates has been permitted to participate for re-draw of lots for allotment of dealership. It is under these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate direction. 7. Notice in the matter was issued as far back as 21.02.2024. Steps have been effected though the Registry as well as by way of dasti service. The affidavit effecting dasti service is available on record which reflects that the steps have been effected by way of dasti on the respondents as far back as 11.03.2025. 8. However, the respondents No. 2 to 5 who represents the Bharat Petroleum Corporation have not entered appearance before this Court inspite of notice being served. The Union of India is represented by the learned DSGI. The private respondents on whom steps have also been taken for service of notice is also not before the Court. 9. Upon considering the submissions made and upon perusal of the writ petition and all the enclosures, it is seen that the grievances of the writ petitioner is with regard to non-consideration of the petitioner’s candidature for being appointed as Retail outlet dealership in pursuance to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023. The grounds for rejection as seen from the communication is non furnishing the registered deed as well as the relevant particulars of the land on which the proposed Retail Outlet Dealership is proposed to be constructed, along with the application submitted by the petitioner. 10. This Court takes serious note to the fact that inspite of notice being Page No.# 5/6 served, the Public Sector Undertaking like the Bharat Petroleum Corporation is not before the Court. It will not be in the interest of justice to decide the lis before the Court presented by way of the writ petition on merits in the absence of Bharat Petroleum Corporation, as no pleadings have been filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. Information on whether the rejection of the writ petitioner’s application on the grounds mentioned in the communication dated 17.01.2024 was on correct appreciation of the facts by the Corporation and whether the subsequent representation of the writ petitioner in furnishing the necessary documents was considered, is also not before the Court as no representation is there on behalf of Bharat Petroleum Corporation. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent authorities namely respondents No. 2 to 5 to expeditiously consider the representation filed by the petitioner more particularly representation dated 18.01.2024 as well as representation dated 13.02.2024 enclosed to the writ petition. The corporation will dispose of these representations by giving a personal hearing to the petitioner if required and thereafter proceed to pass a speaking order on the said representations and serve copies thereof on the petitioner. 11. In so far as the award of the dealership is concerned, the same shall not be proceeded with in view of the status quo order by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2024 and this order will continue till such order(s) are passed by the Corporation for disposing of the representations as directed. 12. In view of the fact that inspite of notice being served, the respondents No. 2 to 5 have not appeared or been represented before this Court and it appears that the respondent Corporation deliberately not entered appearance, we close the writ petition with the above direction and impose the cost of the litigation of Page No.# 6/6 Rs. 5,000/- on the respondents No. 2 to 5 to be paid to the writ petitioner. The speaking order as directed above, shall be passed within 30(Thirty) days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant