Page No.# 1/11 GAHC040007512024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/232/2024 Taba Tagia Son of Taba Tebi, resident of Village Billo, PO Rhep, PS Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh 791119 VERSUS The Union of India and 3 Ors represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi 110001 2:The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : having its registered office at 17 Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai 400001 Maharashtra represented by its 3:The Chairman cum Managing Director Age: 0 Occupation : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited having its registered office at 17 Jamshedji Tata Road Mumbai 400001 Maharashtra 4:The Chief Regional Manager Age: 0 Occupation : Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Guwahati Retail Regional Office Rajiv Gandhi Path Betkuchi Near Maniram Dewan Trade Centre Guwahati 781040 Kamrup District Page No.# 2/11 Assa Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Kirmani Lollen,Terji Kamchi,Khoda Apa,Taba Tokur,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : Marto Kato, Tabit Tapak,DSGI BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 27-02-2025 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Kato, learned DSGI, appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. Tapak, learned Standing Counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), appearing for respondents No.2, 3 and 4. 2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the communication dated 01.06.2024, issued by respondents/ Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL), whereby the candidature of the petitioner for appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealerships under HPCL was rejected with an option to change to category-3. 3. The undisputed facts are to the following effects; i) The respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL, in short) issued notice for appointment of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership, amongst others, in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the said notice was published on 28.06.2023 in the English dailies "Arunachal Times" and other Newspapers. Page No.# 3/11 ii) Pursuant to the said notice of the HPCL, the petitioner on 22.09.2023 through online mode submitted his application for Retail Outlet (RO, in short) Dealership, Petrol Pump Dealership for the location "within 1 Km of M/s. Meen Stone Crusher on Hoj-Potin Road, NH-13". iii) The petitioner belongs to ST category and offered his own 4,275.00 Sq.meters commercial-cum-residential land situated at 16 KM Potin area at village Billo, Post Office Yazali, Police Station Yazali, Circle Yazali under Yazali Sub Division of Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. iv) The respondents HPCL on 13.12.2023 informed the petitioner that he has been provisionally selected for award of Retail Outlet Dealership in the said location under ST category, directing him to remit Rs.30,000/- through online towards Initial Security Deposit (ISD) and to submit necessary documents specified in the said communication dated 13.12.2023 in that regard on or before 23.12.2023. The petitioner accordingly, on 16.12.2023 itself deposited Rs.30,000/- with respondents HPCL towards his ISD for selection for the location "Within 1 Km of M/s Meen Stone Crusher on Hoj-potin Road, NH-13". The petitioner as been directed by the HPCL on 13.12.2023 also uploaded the documents those were sought for by the said corporation. v) However, being not satisfied with the ownership document the impugned decision was taken. vi) Pursuant to that the petitioner has preferred a representation which Page No.# 4/11 is still pending disposal. 4. The impugned decision being the bone of contentions, more particularly, the reasons thereof are quoted herein below. ”Dear Sir, 1. Please refer to your application received by us as Application form No. HPC16953969052945 on the subject. 2. Please also refer to our letter dated 13-Dec-2023 and wherein you were advised to submit certain documents “ 3. However, it is observed that land documents submitted by you are not valid for considering the offered land under Group 1 for reasons as detailed below 1. LPC not available 2. Land availability certificate is not valid as per provision of Rule- 143 of Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records Rules),2012”( emphasized by this court) 4. In view of the above, we regret to inform you that your candidature has been found ineligible. However, your candidature may get considered for selection along with Group 3 applicants as per guidelines. 5. In case you have any grievance against the rejection of your candidature as mentioned above, you may make your representation by 11-Jun-2024.” Page No.# 5/11 5. Thus, from the aforesaid, the grounds for rejection are relatable to 2(two) conditions i.e. want of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) and land availability certificate which is not valid as per Rule 143 of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records Rules), 2012. 6. Before dealing with the aforesaid requirements, let this Court first look into the conditions prescribed for selection of such dealership. It is an admitted position that the selection is based on the guidelines on selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail Outlets through draw of Lots and bidding process. The relevant provision is Clause-4 of the aforesaid guidelines which deals with eligibility criteria for individual applicants/proprietors/partnership. 7. From reading of the aforesaid Clause-4, it is clear that the grounds of rejection are relatable to Clause-4 (vi), which deals with land (applicable to all categories). The petitioner comes under Group-1 of Clause 4(vi) (c). Such Clause prescribes, firstly that the applicant is having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long terms lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC. 8. Clause-4 (vi) states that as and when advised by the Oil Marketing Company (OMC), the provisionally selected candidate should upload a copy of Khasra/Khatouni or any other equivalent revenue document or certificate obtained from revenue officials confirming the status of ownership of the land, as on the date of application. Page No.# 6/11 9. Another relevant provision is under Clause-4 (vi) (f) which prescribes that in addition of the above, and as and when advised by the Oil Marketing Company, provisionally selected candidates under Group-1 should also upload a copy of any of the documents enlisted and such documents should be issued on or before the date of application. 10. The list of documents includes a Registered Sale deed/Registered Gift Deed, Registered Lease deed for minimum period of 19 years and 11 months, any other type of ownership/transfer deed document, Lease agreement or firm allotment letter issued by Government/Semi Government bodies. 11. Thus, a provisionally selected candidate is to submit a certificate obtained from revenue official confirming the status of ownership of the land as and when asked by the corporation. 12. Here, in the case in hand, the authority by the impugned order has not raised any dispute as regards acceptability of Land Possession Certificate (LPC) as ownership document and the land availability certificate. The ground of rejection is that no LPC was available and the land availability certificate is not valid as per Rule-143 of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records Rules), 2012. 13. In the aforesaid context, now this Court is to decide whether such decision made by the Oil Corporation is correct in terms of the prescription made under the Guideline. Page No.# 7/11 14. As recorded here in above, the petitioner was provisionally selected and he was also intimated as regards its provisional selection. And accordingly, he had also deposited an amount of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only as initial security deposit. Such provisional allotment letter was issued on June 13, 2024. In the aforesaid document (Annexure-6), the petitioner was intimated as regards the requirement of document, which includes amongst other Kharsa/ Khatouni or any other equivalent revenue document or certificate obtained from revenue official confirming the status of ownership of the land as on the date of application. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner along with his application dated 22.09.2023, though submitted a land availability certificate issued by Circle Officer, Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh but did not submit any ownership document (LPC). 16. The first the objection of the HPCL is that such land availability certificate is not in terms of Rule 143 of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records Rules), 2012. 17. Rule-143 reads as follows; “the Deputy Commissioner may grant a certificate in respect of its holding to a landowner certifying the nature of his title, the revenue payable at the area giving such other particulars as may be necessary.” Thus, it is the contention of the HPCL that the Land Availability Certificate is not issued by a competent authority, i.e, not by the Page No.# 8/11 Deputy Commissioner, but by a Circle Officer. 18. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Section 6 of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records Rules) Act, 2012, a Circle Officer comes within a definition of a Revenue Officer and such Revenue Officer is authorized to take cognizance of all matters connected with survey of land and settlement of the revenue rates and the preparation and maintenance of land records and other registers and authorized to function and perform all such duties as may be prescribed under the Act or by General or any special order. And therefore, according to Mr. Tara, the guideline/Brohure prescribes issuance of certificate by a Revenue Officer and not specifically mentioned that it should be issued by a Deputy Commissioner. In view of such prescription, the criterion of insisting a certificate by Deputy Commissioner is nothing but hidden criteria. 19. Referring to a determination made by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Nang Wontina Chowpoo Vs. the Union of India and others, (WP(C) 72/2024), Mr. Tara, submits that in a similar circumstance, the Coordinate Bench has in no ambiguity held that the Circle Officer/DLRSO shall be within its power to issue such a certificate. 20. This Court has perused the aforesaid judgment and it was held that Act of 2000 recognizes the DLRSO as revenue officer and Section-6 thereof lays down power of such officer as per which, a certificate can be issued. In the case in hand also the Circle Officer is a revenue authority and as enumerated under Section 4 of the Act of 2000 and therefore, Page No.# 9/11 similar principle will be applicable in the present case also, inasmuch as it was a land availability certificate and not LPC. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, the ground of rejection that the certificate issued by the Circle Officer is not in conformity with Rule-143 is not sustainable. 21. Having said so, this Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that one of the important requirements is certification/ document as regard ownerhsip of the land offered. It is also not in dispute that in the State of Arunachal LPC are issued for ascertaining ownership/title of land. Therefore, let this Court now deal with the issue of non-availability of LPC. 22. Now, coming to the ownerhsip document, i.e LPC, Mr. Tara, submits that such certificate has been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and therefore, reading as a whole, the authorities ought not to have rejected such prayer. 23. Countering the argument of the learned Standing Council for the HPCL that such certificate is dated 22nd of December, 2023, whereas the guideline/brochure strictly prohibits acceptance of any certificate beyond the last date of submission of application and the application was submitted by the petitioner on 22.09.2023 and therefore, the authorities cannot accept such LPC, Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was provisionally selected and was asked to upload all these documents by 23.12.2023. And on the basis of such request, the petitioner had uploaded the LPC which was dated 22.12.2023 and therefore, such LPC is dated prior to 23.12.2023 and therefore, such document could not have been rejected for the reason that same is not Page No.# 10/11 issued on the last date of filing of application. Therefore, Mr. Tara, submits that when the authorities themselves asked the petitioner to up load the LPC by 23.12.2023, they cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time by insisting that such certificate should be dated at least to the last date of filing of the application which in the case is 22.09.2023. 24. So far relating to the uploading and non-availability of LPC, this Court, do not find favour of the argument of Mr. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not disputed by either of the parties that the dealership is to be selected in terms of the guidelines holding the field in this regard. Clause-4 (vi) (e) mandates that at least a certificate from the revenue official confirming the status of the ownership of the land as on the date of the application is required to be furnished. Thus, it is loud and clear that the date of certificate confirming the status of ownership of the land should be at least issued on the last date of filing of the application, which is 22.09.2023 and in this case, the LPC is dated 23.12.2023. Clause-4 (vi) (f) also indicates acceptance of a document which includes allotment letter issued by the Government, in this case in hand, the petitioner admittedly relies on the LPC which is dated 23.12.2023. 25. Now, coming to the communication dated 13.06.2023 by which, the petitioner was intimated as regard his provisional selection, it is clear from the said letter that the certificate required to be produced should be issued on or before the date of application submitted by the petitioner i.e. it should be dated on or before 22.09.2023. However, this is not the case in hand and the LPC was admittedly issued by the revenue authorities on 23.12.2023, which is admittedly beyond 22.09.2023. Page No.# 11/11 26. In the aforesaid background, the decision of the HPCL holding that there was no valid LPC cannot be faulted by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This Court cannot also term the action of the authorities to be arbitrary of approbation and reprobation, inasmuch as they clarified at every stage that such certificate should be issued at least on the last date of submission of the application and therefore, asking the petitioner to upload a certificate by 23.12.2023, shall not create a right upon the petitioner to submit the ownership certificate beyond the time limit prescribed and as recorded herein above. 27. For the reasons recorded herein above, this Court cannot held the impugned decision to be a result of, either arbitrary exercise of power or violative of any of the legal or constitutional right of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant