Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010025282025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/689/2025 INDRAJIT PRASAD S/O- SHRI BISHNU PRASAD, R/O- JAIL ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. NAGAON, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782001 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA IN THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS NEW DELHI 2:HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD A GOVT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE HAVING ITS REGD OFFICE AT 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI 3:THE GENERAL MANAGER RETAIL EAST ZONE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 771 ANANDPUR OFF EM BYPASS KOLKATA 4:THE DY GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE EAST ZONE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 771 ANANDPUR OFF EM BYPASS KOLKATA 5:THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER RETAIL HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD GUWAHATI REGONAL OFFICE HD COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR JANAPATH ULUBARI GUWAHATI 6:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY C/O THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER RETAIL HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE HD COMPLEX 2ND FLOOR JANAPATH ULUBARI GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/4 7:SRI ANAND AGARWAL C/O PAWAN AUTOMOBILES A.T. ROAD DISTRICT KAMRUP METRO ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : NAMRATA MAHANTA, MR. K N CHOUDHURY,N GAUTAM Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S ROY, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 30-04-2025 Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 6 and Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. none appears for the respondent No.1, despite service of notice. 2. By filing this application, the applicant has sought for amendment of the connected writ petition being WP(C) 3777/2021. The reasons for the proposed amendment are as under:- “a. The HPCL failed to conduct a thorough and fair scrutiny of the applications, which is a violation of the principles of fairness and transparency mandated by the Dealer Selection Brochure. b. The decision to award the petrol pump to the private respondent was made without addressing the objections raised by the applicant regarding the merit and qualifications of the candidates. c. This lack of due diligence in the allotment process has resulted in an unjust decision that adversely affects the applicant's rights and interests. 3. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that the actions of HPCL in awarding additional marks to the private respondent were not only irregular but also indicative of a lack of transparency and accountability in the selection process. This raises Page No.# 3/4 serious concerns about the integrity of the decision-making process. 4. It is submitted that Long Term Lease Deed executed by the Private Respondent is in violation of the Mandatory Permission granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Land Record Branch), that the Lease could be executed only for Agricultural Purpose. Long Term Lease executed by the Private Respondent is in violation of the Assam Land Records Manual, 1906 and in Assam Agricultural Land (Regulation of Reclassification and Transfer for Non Agricultural Purpose) Act. 5. Marks for "Income" recommended to be increased for the Private Respondent and granted by HPCL in spite of Income Tax Returns furnished by the Private Respondent for F.Y 2009-2010 and not being for the Last Financial Year 2010-2011, as was required under the Guidelines of the Brochure for allotment of retail outlet. (2010-2011 is assessed in Assessment Year is 2011-2012). Marks for ‘Experience’ awarded to the private Respondent in spite of the Respondent not submitting any Proof or Evidence of one-year managerial experience as was required under the Guidelines. Returns have been filed by the Private Respondent under Form ITR 2, ITR 2 is used by those people/firms where there is no income from business or profession. 6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel further submits that the Private Respondent did not furnish Audited books of Accounts or Sales Tax Returns to claim that the Firm lifted 2kl lubricants every month but instead furnished an endorsement from a stockist, which demonstrates that the claim of the Respondent to be a Karta, and the claim of lifting 2kl of Lubricants is false. He submits that documents submitted by the Applicant were overlooked and the marks were not granted as per the Guidelines of the Dealer Selection Brochure. It is submitted that the Guidelines provided that marks under the heading "income" would be granted to the Applicant if the Applicant or the 'Family Unit had Income.” 7. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submits that the proposed amendments may be allowed since the same are necessary for complete adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition and shall not change the nature of the case. Page No.# 4/4 8. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the opposite party has raised an objection to the amendment sought for as the applicant has failed to clearly point out which paragraphs of the writ petition are to be amended. 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also on perusal of the application, I am of the considered view that the proposed amendment in the writ petition being WP(C) 3777/2021 appears to be necessary for complete adjudication of the issues raised in the writ petition and the same would not change the nature of the case and would not cause any prejudice to the respondents. 10. Accordingly, the amendment sought for in the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the proposed amendments are allowed in the writ petition including the prayer portion. 11. I.A. stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant