Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010196302025 2026:GAU-AS:12255 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5381/2025 BISHAL DAS SON OF LATE SATYA NARAYAN DAS, RESIDENT OF KAMAKHYA NURSERY, NEAR NILACHAL JATIYA VIDYALAYA, HOUSE NO. 1, KAMRUP(M), GUWAHATI, PIN-781009, ASSAM. VERSUS THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND 5 ORS. A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PETROLEUM HOUSE 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, PIN- 400020, MAHARASHTRA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2:THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER-RETAIL GUWAHATI RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION RAJIV GANDHI PATH NEAR MANIRAM DEWAN TRADE CENTRE BETKUCHI GUWAHATI- 781040 ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISISONER KAMRUP AMINGAON ASSAM, PIN- 781012. 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE HAJO, KAMRUP ASSAM, PIN-781102. 5:STRUCK OUT Page No.# 2/7 VIDE ORDER DATED 15.09.2025. 6:AJOY CHANDRA DAS SON OF LATE LOY RAM DAS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HAJO SATDALA P.O. AND P.S.- HAJO KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781102 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P BHARDWAJ, B PARASHAR,M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. M K MISRA(R6),MR. I AHMED(R6),MS R BEGUM(R-6),MR J ISLAM (R-6),MR M R ISLAM(R-6),MR. S BORTHAKUR (R-1,2),MR. S S ROY(R-1,2),SC, REVENUE,SC, A S S E B B E F O R E Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Advocate for the petitioner : Shri P. Bharadwaj, Advocate. Advocates for the respondents : Shri S. Borthakur, SC, HPCL, Shri I. Ahmed, Advocate, (R-6) Date on which judgment is reserved : 25.08.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Judgment & Order (ORAL) The selection of the respondent no. 6 for allotment of a Rural Retail Outlet Dealership of HPCL in which, the petitioner had also participated pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Bereft of details, the facts, as contended are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2023 issued by the HPCL for such allotment, the Page No.# 3/7 petitioner along with others including the respondent no. 6 had participated so far as location under Sl. No. 266 is concerned namely, between Anchalik Matia Vidyalaya Randia to HS Ramdia School at Ramdia. The conditions mentioned in the advertisement had 3 groups qua the ownership/possession of land and since the petitioner did not have any land, he was placed in Group-3. On the other hand, the respondent no. 6 was placed in Group- 1 as he had offered land by means of a registered lease deed. The challenge is with regard to the aforesaid lease deed which has been offered by the respondent no. 6 with the prime contention that though the lease deed was executed, there was no clear demarcation and there were other co-pattadars. 3. I have heard Shri P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, HPCL and Shri I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 4. Shri Bharadwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the prescription of land as mentioned in Clause 4 (6) of the advertisement. Since the controversy is with regard to the land offered by the respondent no. 6 who claims to be in Group 1, the learned counsel has submitted that to be eligible to be placed under such Group 1 applicants are required to have suitable piece of land in the advertised location either way of ownership/long term lease for a minimum period of 19 years 11 months. He has also drawn the attention to the other conditions including at Sl. No. 4 (iv) (a) which prescribes that the land should be available with the applicant as on the date of submission of the application and in case of multiple owners, all such owners should execute the deed or submit NOC. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause - 4 (iv) (g) which states that if the land is owned by family members, each family member is required to give an NOC in Page No.# 4/7 case the applicant is one of such family members. He has also referred to Note 3 of the said condition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a Lease Deed was executed in favour of the respondent no. 6 on 25.07.2023 which was offered by the respondent no. 6. He has however submitted that though the lessor had purchased the land vide a registered sale deed on 03.04.2021, the demarcation was not done prior to the last date of submission of the bid which was 17.10.2023. He has submitted that in absence of demarcation, the land offered by the respondent no. 6 cannot be identified and therefore the selection of the respondent no. 6 by placing him in Group 1 is unreasonable and arbitrary. 6. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:- i. Ram Chandra Sarkar Vs HPCL [2025 SCC Online Gau 3003]. ii. Nipun Das Vs UoI [2025 SCC Online Gau 4699]. iii. Prabin Das Vs BPCL [WP(C)/4369/2024] 7. In the case of Ram Chandra Sarkar (supra) a Coordinate Bench of this Court had upheld the decision of the authorities wherein the lease deed was executed by 2 co-pattadars instead of 6 co-pattadars. 8. In the cases of Nipun Das (supra) and Prabin Das (supra), this Court had held that in case of multiple owners, such lease deed has to be signed by all the co-owners. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the entire process being not in accordance with law requires interference and the land offered by the respondent no. 6 cannot be accepted and he be placed in the category 3 and a fresh selection be made. Page No.# 5/7 10. Per contra, Shri Borthakur, the learned counsel for the HPCL has submitted that no rights whatsoever have accrued upon the petitioner to institute the present challenge. He has submitted that admittedly the petitioner did not qualify himself to be in Group-1 and was placed in Group-3. On the other hand, the respondent no. 6 was found suitable to be placed in Group 1 and the subsequent actions were taken. He has submitted that all actions taken were by following the due process of law and bona fide. He has submitted that the sale deed in favour of the lessor of the respondent no. 6 is dated 03.04.2021 and there is no dispute in this regard. He has also submitted that the lease deed by both the owners of the land in question, who are the lessors had executed the lease deed on 25.07.2023 which is before the last date of submission in terms of the advertisement, which was 17.10.2023. He has submitted that subsequently the demarcation was also made on 12.11.2025 and new Patta and Dag numbers have been issued in favour of the lessors of the respondent no. 6. In the mean time, the Letter of Intent (LoI) was issued on 30.07.2025 after the NOC was issued by the District Commissioner. It is now the stage for issuance of Letter of Allotment (LoI). 11. The learned counsel for the HPCL accordingly submits that the writ petition be dismissed. 12. Supporting the submissions made on behalf of the HPCL, Shri I. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that the present challenge is without any substance. He has also submitted that the sale deed in favour of the lessors dated 03.04.2021 clearly mentions the Schedule of the land by which, the land is clearly identifiable. 13. The rival submissions advanced in the Bar have been duly considered and Page No.# 6/7 the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 14. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023 for allotment, the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 along with others had participated. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was placed in Group-3. The dispute however is placing of the respondent no. 6 in Group -1 which requires the applicant to possess/own land which can also be by means of a long term lease. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that a registered lease deed in favour of the respondent no. 6 was executed on 25.07.2023 which is before the last date of submission i.e. 17.10.2023. The challenge is however on the aspect that though such lease deed was executed, there was no demarcation of the land which originally a part of a larger plot of land owned by the family members. As per the case projected, the demarcation being done after the last date of submission, the same would be hit by the tender Clauses. 15. From a careful perusal of the materials on record and as admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the demarcation was indeed made on 12.11.2025 which is after the last date of the submission. However, the question will arise as to whether lack of demarcation before the last date can be an issue which can be raised by the petitioner who is not only a competitor but was placed in Group 3 of the selection process. It is not in dispute that the sale deed in favour of the lessors of the respondent no. 6 is of prior date. For the sake of clarity, it is seen that the sale deed is dated 03.04.2021 and the lease deed is also dated 25.07.2023 and both were of prior point of time than the date of submission. What is also to be noted is that there is no challenge regarding the ownership of the lessor of the respondent no. 6 as the sale deed dated 03.04.2021 is not the subject matter of dispute in any forum. Neither there is any issue raised on the validity of the Lease Deed. The challenge is on the Page No.# 7/7 aspect of lack of demarcation. This Court is however of the opinion that when the HPCL authorities are satisfied on the registered lease deed furnished by the respondent no. 6, the issue which has been sought to be raised by the petitioner would amount to putting a fetter on the decision making process. After all it is trite that certain free play in the joint is required to be given to the owner while making a decision. Such free play however is to be within the bounds of law and in the considered opinion of this Court, the decision taken by the HPCL authorities cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. It is further not the case that a mandatory condition of the tender has been violated in the decision making process. 16. As far as the case laws relied upon by the petitioner, this Court has noticed that the facts and circumstances of those cases are wholly different from the facts of the present case. In the case laws, the ownership of the petitioners which was questioned by the authorities and their candidature rejected were upheld by this Court as such ownership was found to be clouded. 17. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference on merits is made out and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 18. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant