Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020003022025 2026:GAU-NL:259-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/10/2025 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS INDIAN OIL BHAVAN G-9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051 REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER 2: THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED EAST POINT TOWER BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 3: THE HEAD OF DIVISIONAL OFFICE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED TINSUKIA DIVISIONAL OFFICE SRIPURIA ROAD TINSUKIA-786125 VERSUS SHICHABA AND ANR S/O SHRI IMNAYANGLU R/O H.NO. 189 NEAR VILLAGE GATE INDISEN VILLAGE DIMAPUR-797112 NAGALAND 2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS A-WING Page No.# 2/8 SHASTRI BHAVAN DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD NEW DELHI-110001 ------------ Advocate for : N BARUAH Advocate for : N K LUIKHAM (R-1) appearing for SHICHABA AND ANR BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 13.05.2026 (U.K. Nair, J) Heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. N.K. Luikham, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ appeal is taken up for final consideration at the admission stage itself. 3. The appellants, herein, have instituted the present appeal assailing the judgment & order dated 13.06.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/91(K)/2019. 4. The sole respondent, herein, had, in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the appellants, herein, submitted his candidature for appointment as a Retail Outlet Dealer with regard to location on Manja- Dimapur Road on NH-29 from Nagaland Gate within 2 kms towards St. John’s College. The respondent, herein, in support of his application had offered a plot of land at Indisen Village, Dimapur, Nagaland vide village Patta No.429 dated 25.06.2015, bearing registered No.322/15 under Page No.# 3/8 Indisen Village Council situated at Manja-Dimapur Road on NH-29. The application submitted by the respondent, herein, being found to conform to the eligibility criterias set out in the advertisement, his case was shortlisted for selection. Accordingly, the respondent was informed vide an email dated 19.01.2019, about his qualification for the draw of lots for selection of the Retail Outlet Dealership. The respondent was required to be present personally for the same along with a photo identity card. Thereafter, on conclusion of the draw of lots, the respondent being selected, the appellants, herein, informed him about the same vide an email dated 02.02.2019. The respondent was also required to remit an amount of ₹30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) online as security deposit and submit a set of documents specified in the email within 10 (ten) days, with the authorities of the appellant-corporation for processing of his application for award of the Retail Outlet Dealership at the said location. 5. The respondent, while proceeding to submit the documents as required by him to be so deposited, found that he had misplaced the ‘Affidavit-cum-Declaration’ executed before the Notary Public, Nagaland on 22.12.2018, as well as the Search Report issued by Shri K. Lotha, Advocate, wherein, it was certified that the land offered by the respondent would place him within Group-1 of the category set out in the advertisement for allotment of the dealership in question. The said documents having been misplaced, the respondent immediately filed an FIR at the Mokokchung Police Station-II and, a GD Entry being GDE No. 02/2019 dated 05.02.2019 came to be made in this connection. As the original copies of ‘Affidavit-cum-Declaration’ as well as the ‘Search Report’ Page No.# 4/8 were mandated to be produced, the respondent on not being able to contact his earlier counsel, Shri K. Lotha, had the said Affidavit-cum- Declaration as well as the Search Report, freshly prepared through Ms. Sudipta Acharjee, Advocate. Thereafter, the respondent furnished the same along with other requisite documents to the corporation in original. 6. The appellant-corporation, on considering the documents submitted by the respondent, arrived at a conclusion that the same were not valid placing him in Group-1 category by considering the land offered by the respondent. Accordingly, the respondent was relocated to Group-3 of the guidelines. The respondent approached the authorities for redressal of his grievances in this connection and the same not having been favorably considered, the respondent had approached the writ court by way of instituting the writ petition, being WP(C)/91(K)/2019. The learned Single Judge, upon hearing the parties to the proceeding and on perusal of the materials brought on record vide judgment dated 13.06.2024, noticing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-corporation, was pleased to direct that the respondent, herein, be given 15 (fifteen) days time for submitting an Affidavit from Mr. K. Lotha, Advocate and in the event such affidavit is so filed within the time frame prescribed, the appellant-corporation was directed to consider the opinion dated 22.12.2018, as well as the Affidavit-cum-Declaration dated 22.12.2018, as if the originals have been submitted. Being aggrieved, the appellants have instituted the present writ appeal. Page No.# 5/8 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The learned Single Judge had noticed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, herein, before him as follows: “12. On the other hand, Mr. N. Baruah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the affidavit-cumdeclaration as well as the legal report of the Advocate which was submitted in original pursuant to the email dated 02.02.2019 were different affidavit-cum-declaration from that of the one submitted earlier. He further submitted that the legal report was also different. Drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-F and Annexure-F1, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation submitted that the ‘Affidavit-cum-Declaration’ as well as the legal report were both dated 22.12.2018. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that these were the documents which were submitted at the time of submission of application on 25.12.2018. Further drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure-G and Annexure-G1, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that when the originals of the affidavit-cum-declaration and the legal report of the Advocate, both dated 22.12.2018 was directed to be placed before the respondent Corporation, the petitioner submitted the originals of the documents which have been enclosed as Annexure-G and Anenxure-G1 which were dated 07.02.2019 and 08.02.2019 respectively. He therefore submitted that it is under such circumstances, the communication dated 22.02.2019 was issued. 13. This Court while hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation made a specific query to the learned counsel as to whether from a perusal of the Annexure-F and F1 with Annexure-G and G1, the land which was offered by the petitioner is the same or not. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation fairly submitted that a perusal of the Annexure-F1 and Annexure-G1, it reveals that the land so offered by the petitioner was one and the same. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation further submitted that the respondent authorities are not adverse to accepting of the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018 as well as the legal report issued by Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate dated 22.12.2018 provided Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate affirms by way of an affidavit that he had duly issued the search report dated 22.12.2019 and the contents of the photocopy of the search report dated 22.12.2018 are correct. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation further submitted that in the said affidavit, Shri Kimonthung Lotha, Advocate should also affirm that the ‘Affidavit-cum- Declaration’ dated 22.12.2018 was executed by the petitioner before him.” Page No.# 6/8 9. The learned Single Judge after noticing the said submissions and also upon hearing the respondent, herein, had proceeded to make the following observations: “18. Taking into account the above, this Court upon perusal of the ‘Affidavit-cum- Declaration’ dated 22.12.2018, the opinion dated 22.12.2018 of Shri Kimonthung Lotha as well as the ‘Affidavit-cum-Declaration’ dated 07.02.2019 and the opinion dated 08.02.2019, is of the opinion that the land which was offered by the petitioner appears to be the same land. It is on account of the opinion dated 22.12.2018 of Shri Kimonthung Lotha as well as affidavit-cum- declaration dated 22.12.2018 submitted initially having been lost, the petitioner had submitted ‘Affidavit-cum-Declaration’ dated 07.02.2019 and the opinion dated 08.02.2019. 19. Taking into account that the respondents are not adverse to accepting an affidavit in the form and manner already stated herein above and the petitioner has expressed his willingness to submit an affidavit to that extent, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be met if the petitioner herein is granted 15 (fifteen) days from today for submitting the affidavit and in the circumstance, such affidavit is filed within 15 (fifteen) days from today, the respondent authorities shall consider the opinion dated 22.12.2018 as well as the affidavit-cum-declaration dated 22.12.2018 as if the originals have been submitted. 20. This Court further directs that the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner along with other applicants in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the brochure for selection of regular and rural retail outlet dealership dated 24.11.2018.” 10. At the outset we would like to highlight that in terms of the stand of the learned counsel for the parties in the present proceedings, it is found that the selection of the respondent, herein, for allotment of the said Retail Outlet Dealership had already occasioned on 02.02.2019, when an email in this connection was issued to the respondent. Accordingly, the rejection of the case of the petitioner was only on the ground that he had not produced the originals of the affidavit dated 22.12.2018 as well as the opinion dated 22.12.2018. The learned Single Judge had considered the Page No.# 7/8 issue and had drawn his conclusion thereon. The learned Single Judge had allowed the respondent, herein, to bring on record the fresh information as well as the Affidavit-cum-Declaration from the earlier counsel, Mr. K. Lotha and further directed that the Xerox copies of the said documents submitted by the respondent be considered, as if the originals have been submitted. We have carefully perused the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge in the judgment & order dated 13.06.2024, and find the same to have been drawn on a proper appreciation of the material coming on record in the writ proceedings and no perversity is found therein. The conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge is found to be a plausible one and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the same would not mandate any interference. The learned counsel for the appellants has also failed to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. 11. Having upheld the conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, we would observe that the respondent already being a selected candidate for allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership, in question, there would arise no occasion for holding a fresh selection in the matter, and the appellants would be required to take the process involved to its logical conclusion. 12. In view of the above observations, the present writ appeal stands dismissed. However, it is directed that the appellants shall now proceed with the allotment of the Retail Outlet Dealership by considering the respondent, herein, to be the selected candidate and thereafter process the matter strictly in accordance with the directions passed by the learned Page No.# 8/8 Single Judge in paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the impugned judgment & order dated 13.06.2024. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant