Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010213422024 2026:GAU-AS:1310 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5254/2024 L. BIDYAPATI SINGHA S/O- L. MODAN SINGHA, R/O- VILL.- SINAGRI BASTI, P.O. NANDAPUR CHARIALI, DIST.- HOJAI, PIN- 782435, ASSAM VERSUS HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND 2 ORS A GOVERNMENT COMPANY 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 2ND FLOOR JANAPATH H.D. COMPLEX G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781007 DIST. KAMRUP(M) ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL HEAD. 3:PURNA BAHADUR CHETRI APPLICATION NO. HPC16956503189184 TO BE SERVED THROUGH GUWAHATI RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D GOGOI, MR ARINDAM BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S S ROY (R-1,2), MR J ISLAM (R-3),MR M R ISLAM(R- 3),MR. S BORTHAKUR(R-1,2) Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 29.01.2026 Heard Shri D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Corporation and Shri MR Islam, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is against an order dated 26.07.2024, whereby his candidature for grant of a retail outlet has been rejected. As per the facts projected, the petitioner, who is an ex-serviceman, had participated in an allotment process which was advertised on 28.06.2024. The petitioner claims to have entered into a lease agreement with two persons who are co-partners of the plot of land. However, the impugned order has been passed on 26.07.2024, rejecting the candidature as the petitioner could not fulfill the requirement of being the absolute owner or the leaseholder of the land required for construction of the retail outlet. 3. Shri Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order was issued without giving adequate opportunity. He has, however, fairly submitted that though there was an understanding with the co-partners for giving the plot of land on lease to the petitioner, the formalities could not be completed. 4. Shri Borthakur, learned counsel for the Corporation has submitted that the cancellation order has been passed on relevant and germane considerations. He has submitted that the requirement of having the land as the sole owner or the leaseholder is a mandatory requirement which the petitioner could not be fulfilled. Page No.# 3/4 5. The scope of a Writ Court to exercise its powers under Certiorari jurisdiction is only to examine the decision making process. Law is well settled in this field. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after discussing the previous case laws on the jurisdiction of a Writ Court qua the writ of Certiorari, in the case of Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and Anr. Vs. Bikartan Das & Ors reported in 2023 INSC 733 has laid down as follows: “49. Before we close this matter, we would like to observe something important in the aforesaid context: Two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. 50. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. A writ of certiorari, being a high prerogative writ, should not be issued on mere asking. 51. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice Page No.# 4/4 between the parties. Article 226 of the Constitution grants an extraordinary remedy, which is essentially discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The legal formulations cannot be enforced divorced from the realities of the fact situation of the case. While administering law, it is to be tempered with equity and if the equitable situation demands after setting right the legal formulations, not to take it to the logical end, the High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not.” 6. In the instant case, the impugned order clearly states the reasons for which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected. As indicated above, the reason cited is with regard to non-fulfillment of the requirement to have a land on his own or being the leaseholder. The aforesaid consideration cannot be said to be extraneous or irrelevant. 7. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. 8. The interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant