Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010005772023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/547/2023 RAJIB GOGOI S/O LT. PRODIP GOGOI R/O VILL. BURALIKSON GAON, P.O. KATHALGURI P.S. KUMARGAON DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM VERSUS INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND 4 ORS. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA EAST MUMBAR-400051 2:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE INDIAN OIL AOD IOCL SRIPURIA P.O. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM 3:THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE INDIAN OIL AOD IOCL SRIPURIA P.O. AND DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER GOLAGHAT REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R PHUKAN, MR. P TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, I O C, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 13.08.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has raised a grievance with regard to the non-issuance of no objection certificate by the District Authorities of Golaghat for setting up of a retail outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for which he was issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) on 29.12.2020. 3. The petitioner not being in a position to submit the requisite NOC from the District Authorities, the said Letter of Intent (LOI) was cancelled on 15.11.2022. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. On the last date of listing, the learned Government Advocate, was directed to receive instruction with regard to the exact reason for not issuance of no objection certificate to the petitioner herein as well as the stage at which the resolution of the boundary dispute between the petitioner and the landholder in Dag No. 1451 and 1493 was pending. 5. Mr. N. Goswami today has placed on record the instructions received by him from the District Commissioner, Golaghat. Page No.# 3/4 6. A perusal of the said instructions would go to reveal that a part of land measuring 3 kathas covered by Dag No. 1460, Patta No. 372 was bought by the petitioner from one Bakul Saikia. The land bought by the petitioner and covered by Dag No. 1460 was originally part of Dag No. 1451. 7. It is projected that in addition to be in possession of the 3 katha land brought and now covered by Dag No. 1460, the petitioner herein is occupying additional 12 lessas of land of Dag No. 1451 and had made constructions thereon, which has led to the blocking, the ingress and egress of the said Bakul Saikia and one Rijumoni Saikia. 8. Accordingly, it is projected that criminal cases have also been instituted in the matter by said Rijumoni Saikia against the petitioner herein. 9. In the said instruction, it has also been highlighted that due to the said boundary dispute, the Circle Officer at the relevant point of time had not issued the No Objection Certificate for setting up of the retail outlet of IOCL. 10. The non-issuance of the No Objection Certification is admittedly on account of an act perpetrated by the petitioner which had led to a boundary dispute and the same not having been resolved. 11. This Court does not find any error on the part of the IOCL authorities in proceeding to cancel the LOI issued to the petitioner, by way of issuance of the Impugned Communication dated 26.11.2020. Page No.# 4/4 12. The resolution of the issue boundary dispute which also had the active participation of the petitioner, herein, having not been resolved, this Court also does not find any error on the part of the Jurisdictional Circle Officer in not issuing an no objection certificate in the matter. 13. The above position which has come to light, in view of the instructions placed on record by Mr. N. Goswami and which has not been disputed by Mr. R. Phukan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the present petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. Howewever, there would be no order as to cost. 14. The instructions furnished by Mr. N. Goswami is kept on record and marked as ‘X’ for the purpose of identification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant