Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010017242025 2025:GAU-AS:7596 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/579/2025 RAM CHANDRA SARKAR S/O- LATE HARLAL SARKAR VILL-BAMPARA, P.O- MAKRIKUCHI, P.S- TARABARI, DIST-BARPETA, ASSAM, VERSUS THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, PIN-400020, MAHARASHTRA AND REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR 2:GUWAHATI RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED 2NDFLOOR JANAPATH H.D COMPLEX G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN-781007 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H A AHMED, MR. MUSTAFA HUSSAIN,MR. R ALI Advocate for the Respondent : MR J ISLAM, MR M R ISLAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 11.06.2025 Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. R. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Page No.# 2/5 2. The petitioner is aggrieved with the impugned letter dated 10.01.2025, issued by the respondent No. 2, by which the petitioner’s application for awarding RO dealership within 1 KM of Ajmal Senior Secondary School, Chenga on LHS towards Hajo on Barpeta-Hajo Raod, district-Barpeta under SC category advertised on 28.06.2023, has been rejected, on the ground that the petitioner’s lease deed had not been executed by all the 6 co-pattadars of the land in question. It had only been executed by 2 co-pattadars, instead of 6 co- pattadars. 3. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner had been provisionally selected for award of the retail outlet dealership by way of Draw of Lots, vide letter dated 13.12.2023. However, after verification of the documents, the State respondents rejected the petitioner’s application, on the ground that the petitioner’s lease deed did not conform to Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, as only 2 out of the 6 co- pattadars had signed the lease deed, instead of all 6 co-pattadars. Clause 4(vi) (a) states as follows:- “a) The land should be available with the applicant as on the date of application and should have minimum lease of 19 years and 11 months (as advertised by respective oil company) from the date or after the date of advertisement but not later than the date of application. If the offered land is on Long-term lease and there are multiple owners, then lease deed should be executed by all co-owners of the offered plot. In case lease deed is not executed by all co-owners, such lease deed shall be treated as invalid.” 4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondents have illegally Page No.# 3/5 rejected the petitioner’s application, for grant of retail outlet dealership, by wrongly applying Clause 4(vi)(a), while the petitioner’s case should have been considered under Clause 4(vi)(g) & (h) of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, wherein the signatures of all the co- pattadars/owners are not required in respect of family land. Clause 4(vi)(g) & (h) are as follows:- “g) The land owned by the family member(s) will also be considered as belonging to the applicant (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in the form of affidavit (Appendix-III) from the concerned family member(s). Such consent letter in the form of affidavit should have been tendered by the concerned family member(s) on or before the date of application. h) For this purpose, family members would comprise of:- (i) Self (ii) Spouse (iii) Father/Mother including Step Father/Step Mother (iv) Brother/Sister/Step Brother/Step Sister (v) Son/Daughter/Step Son/Step Daughter (vi) Son-in-law/Daughter-in-law (vii) Parents-in-law (viii) Grant Parents (both maternal & paternal” 5. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays that the impugned letter dated 10.01.2025, rejecting the petitioner’s application, should be set aside and the petitioner should be awarded the retail outlet dealership. 6. Mr. M. R. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, on the other hand, submits that as per the Record of Rights with regard to land covered by Dag No. 522 Patta No. 347, which had been offered by the petitioner for establishing the retail outlet dealership, if he was awarded the same, belonged to 6 co-pattadars, who were not the family members of the petitioner. Page No.# 4/5 The lease deed, which the petitioner provided for running the retail outlet dealership, if he was awarded the same, had the signatures of only 2, out of 6 co-pattadars. 7. As the 4 out of the 6 co-pattadars had not given their signatures, the petitioner’s application having been made in violation of Clause 4(vi)(a), there was no infirmity with the rejection of the petitioner’s application. Further, Clause 4(vi)(g) was not applicable, as the land that was offered by the petitioner, for installation of the petrol pump, did not belong to the family of the petitioner. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. The Record of Rights (Zamabandi) in relation to the Dag No. 522 Patta No. 347, relating to 11 Bighas of land shows the following to be the 6 owners/co- pattadars:- “1. Sri Chadiman Ali, S/o- Syed Ali, 2. Sri Safikul Haque, S/o- Chekandar Ali, 3. Md. Ripon Ali, S/o-Chekandar Ali, 4. Sri Sahidul Islam, S/o-Chekandar Ali, 5. Sri Tafikul Haque, S/o- Chekandar Ali, 6. Sri Nurjahan Nessa, W/o-Late Chekandar Ali” 10. A perusal of the lease deed dated 16.10.2023 with regard to the above plot of land, shows that the same had been executed between the petitioner, Ripon Ali and Sahidul Islam. There is no signature of the other 4 co-pattadars in the lease deed dated 16.10.2023. As such, there is nothing to show that all the co- Page No.# 5/5 pattadars had given their consent to the lease of the said property to the petitioner. The same not being in consonance with Clause 4(vi)(a) of the Guidelines on Selection of Dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets, which is a essential condition of the tender, this Court does not find any infirmity with the rejection of the petitioner’s application. Further, the co-pattadars of the said plot of land and the petitioner are not related (family members) in the manner provided in Clause 4(vi)(h). As such, Clause 4(vi)(g) is not applicable to the petitioner’s case. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant