Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 18 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010202962025
2026:GAU-AS:2380
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5235/2025
SRI RAJU CHOWHAN
SON OF LATE ISHAWAR DAYAL CHOUHAN, R/O- 409, SONAI ROAD, SHIV
MANDIR, SILCHAR, SONABARIGHAT PT- I, CACHAR, SILCHAR, ASSAM,
PIN799013.
VERSUS
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED
REGISTERED OFFICEINDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, D
BLOCK BKC, NAUPADA, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI- 400051,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (LPG)
IOCL
INDIAN OIL BHAVAN
SECTOR- III NOONMATI
GUWAHATI781020
ASSAM.
3:THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES HEAD
IOCL
SILCHAR DIVISIONAL OFFICE
MOINARBOND DOPOT
P.S.- UDHARBOND
P.O.- GOSSAIPUR
SILCHAR
DISTRICTCACHAR
ASSAM
PIN788303
Page No.# 2/11
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CACHAR DISTRICT
SILCHAR
ASSAM.
5:THE ADDL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
CACHAR DISTRICT
SILCHAR
ASSAM
6:SRI SHAWMITRA NATH
SON OF LATE SANAT KUMAR NATH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHIBITA BICHIA PT- IV
P.O.- CHIBITA BICHIA
P.S.- SILCHAR
DISTRICT- CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78815
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MISS R A CHOUDHURY(R-6),MR E AHMED(R-
6),MR. K N CHOUDHURY (R-6),MR R I BHUYAN(R-6),MS. L WAJEEDA(R-6),MR. M H SAIKIA
(R-6),MR. N H MAZARBHUIYAN(R-6),SC, I O C
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Petitioner : Mr. D. Chakrabarty, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Senior, Advocate
assisted by Mr. E. Ahmed, Advocate for
the respondent Mo.6
Mr. M. Sharma, Standing Counsel, IOCL
for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. K. Gogoi, for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
Page No.# 3/11
Date of Hearing : 16.02.2026
Date of Judgment & Order : 18.02.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER(CAV)
1. Heard Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. E.
Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, Mr. M. Sharma, learned
Standing Counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation representing the
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the Letter of
Intent bearing Ref. No. R 2024/IN000129/AS/000002/7503/00001 dated
07.06.2024, issued by respondent No. 3 in favour of respondent No. 6 for
appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership for the location from
Sonabarighat Point to Sonai Police Outpost on Silchar-Sonai PWD Road.
3. The challenge arises from a selection process initiated by the IOCL,
pursuant to an advertisement dated 28.06.2023, inviting applications for
the appointment of Regular/Rural Outlet (Petrol Pump Dealership) across
notified locations.
4. The subject matter of the present writ petition is the location from
Page No.# 4/11
Sonabarighat Point to Sonai Police Outpost on Silchar-Sonai PWD Road.
5. The petitioner assails the process on three grounds.
6. Firstly, it is argued by Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the
petitioner that though respondent No. 6 produced a lease deed for 20
years as required for candidate under Group-1, the Stamp duty paid
thereon is deficient to what is statutorily required under provisions of Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to the State of Assam, thereby rendering
the lease legally infirm, disentitling the respondent No. 6 from being
treated as a valid Group-1 applicant. However, it is argued that, for
reasons other than bona fide, the respondent IOCL has accepted the
lease deed in total violation of the prescription set out in the selection
brochure.
7. It is contended by Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner,
that there was non-compliance of Clause 4 (vii) (b) and 4(vii)(1) of the
brochure governing OBC (Non Creamy Layer) certification. According to
the learned counsel for the petitioner, the OBC certificate initially
produced by the respondent No. 6 was dated 28.01.2014, which predates
the advertisement and thus failed to satisfy the stipulation that the
relevant certificate must be issued subsequent to the advertisement. Thus,
disentitling the respondent No. 6 from any LOI.
Page No.# 5/11
8. It is further contended that the respondent No. 6 committed fraud by
submitting two certifications in the format prescribed under Appendix-
VII(B)(1), one dated 21.12.2023 and another dated 06.09.2023. According
to the petitioner, based on information obtained under the Right to
Information Act, the issuing authority of the certificate dated 06.09.2023
denied the issuance of any such certificate. Accordingly, it is contended
that the entire process stands vitiated by fraud, which strikes at the root of
the administrative action, warranting judicial interference.
9. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent No. 6, raises an objection as to the locus standi of the
petitioner. Relying on Clause 18.I.(f), it is urged that the selection scheme
creates a clear hierarchy: Group-2 candidates acquire the right of
consideration only after the exhaustion or disqualification of Group-1
applicants. The petitioner, having applied under Group-2 and lost at the
threshold, cannot challenge the selection of the successful Group-1
candidate. Even if the candidature of the respondent No. 6 is invalidated,
the next eligible candidate within Group-1 would be entitled to
consideration, not the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, suffers no
enforceable injury to invoke this Court’s writ jurisdiction, argues Mr
Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel.
Page No.# 6/11
10. On the issue of deficient Stamp duty, learned senior counsel contends
that the lease deed in favour of the respondent No. 6 is a registered
instrument and any question as to the deficient stamp duty or its legal
consequence lies within the statutory framework of revenue authorities or
a competent civil court and not under the power of judicial review.
11. As regards compliance with OBC certification, it is submitted that the
relevant Appendix VII(A) certificate relied on by the Corporation is dated
21.12.2023, which is subsequent to the last date of submission of the
application, i.e., 17.10.2023, and satisfies the prescription of the brochure.
Since the certificate dated 06.09.2023 is not the basis of consideration, the
administrative action cannot be interfered with on the basis of such
alleged fraud.
12. This Court has given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced
by the Learned Council for the parties, and also perused the record
produced by Mr. M. Sharma, Learned counsel for the Respondent
Corporation.
13. The advertisement and brochure structured eligibility into three distinct
groups, based on the nature of land availability.
14. Group 1 comprises applicants who possess a suitable parcel of land in
Page No.# 7/11
the advertised location, either by ownership or by long-term lease for a
minimum period of 19 years and 11 months; Group 2 comprises applicants
with a firm offer to purchase or to long-term lease of similar duration;
Group 3 addresses residual contingencies.
15. Clause 18.1.f of the brochure mandates that the draw of lots would be
first conducted among eligible applicants of Group 1 and only in the
absence of eligible Group 1 candidates or upon their collective
disqualification or withdrawal of issued LOIs, would the candidature of
Group 2 applicants be considered.
16. Respondent No. 6 applied under Group 1, asserting a 20-year leasehold
interest, whereas the petitioner applied under Group 2. The draw of lots
was conducted among eligible Group 1 applicants, and the Respondent
No. 6 was declared the winner.
17. The petitioner, having participated under Group 2, did not enter the
zone of consideration, and a letter of intent was directly issued in favour of
Respondent No. 6.
18. The aforesaid facts are undisputed.
19. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, let this Court first deal with the
question of locus standi. It is well settled that the doctrine of locus standi, in
Page No.# 8/11
a competitive selection process, is not a mere technical rule but a
jurisdictional threshold.
20. A participant who stands outside the zone of consideration cannot
predicate a challenge upon a speculative or remote possibility of
advantage.
21. The architecture of Clause 18.1.f clearly subordinates Group 2 to Group
1. Unless the entire cohort of Group 1 candidates is eliminated, a Group 2
applicant cannot claim a contingent right to consideration.
22. Admittedly, the petitioner participated in the process under Group 2,
keeping his eyes open and without any challenge to the classification of
Group 1 and Group 2, with an advantage to Group 1 over Group 2.
23. In the given facts of the present case, even if the petitioner is not held
to be ineligible, until and unless the other candidates who are already in
Group 1 are exhausted, the petitioner’s case cannot be considered.
Therefore, this court finds force in the argument of Mr. Choudhury, learned
Senior Counsel, in this regard.
24. As regards the issue of an alleged deficient stamp duty in the registered
lease deed submitted by the petitioner, it raises a question embedded in
the statutory mechanism under the Stamp Law. The writ court does not
Page No.# 9/11
operate as a substitute for Civil or Revenue adjudication where disputed
questions of fact and statutory remedies exist. Therefore, so long as the
fact that the instruments in question stand registered is not disputed and
so long as the same has not been invalidated by a competent forum, the
respondent IOCL cannot be faulted for acting upon it in the administrative
assessment of eligibility. Therefore, the arguments advanced by Mr
Chakrabarty, learned counsel for the petitioner, on this count stand
negated.
25. Now, coming to the argument of fraud, it is true that fraud vitiates all
solemn acts; yet the allegation of fraud must be established with cogent
material and must bear a proximate nexus to the decision.
26. In the case at hand, the record reveals that the administrative
authority has demonstrably relied on the undisputed valid certificate
dated 21-12-2023, fulfilling the requirement of the brochures regarding the
candidate’s OBC status. Therefore, the existence of another allegedly
forged document that did not form the basis of the decision cannot ipso
facto vitiate the outcome.
27. A writ court does not embark upon a roving enquiry into disputed
factual allegations, particularly when the decision-making process, on the
face of the record, reflects adherence to prescribed norms.
Page No.# 10/11
28. It is reiterated that in matters of allotment of retail outlet dealerships by
public sector oil marketing companies, the court’s scrutiny is confined to
examining whether the process is arbitrary, malafide or in patent violation
of the governing guidelines. It is equally well settled that judicial review
concerns the decision-making process, not the decision itself.
29. This court, after perusal of the material and for the reasons recorded
hereinabove, can not term the exercise of power to be arbitrary, malafide
or in patent violation of the governing guidelines
30. In conclusion, the selection of the Respondent No. 6 under Group 1 has
been made in accordance with the express stipulation that Group 2
would be considered only upon non-availability or disqualification of
Group 1 applicants and when the documents relied upon by the
corporation satisfy the textual requirement of the Brouchure, in the opinion
of this Court, invocation of Article 226 cannot change the character of a
contingent aspiration into an enforceable right.
31. Though the writ jurisdiction is expansive, it does not extend to
challenging a final selection on the basis of an anticipated injury or to
collateral disputes over an instrument not invalidated in accordance with
the law.
Page No.# 11/11
32. Based on this anvil, the issuance of the letter of intent does not disclose
any infirmity warranting interference with the impugned LOI in the exercise
of the power of judicial review by this Court.
33. Accordingly, being devoid of any merit, the writ petition stands
dismissed. The earlier interim order stands vacated. The parties should bear
their own costs.
34. Record produced by Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for the
IOCL is returned back.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
