1 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM: NAGALAND: MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. 4022/2016 Sri David Brahma Son of Sri Biraj Brahma Resident of Kahilipara Journalist Colony Dakhin Janakpur, Ward No. 59, House No. 2264, Guwahati-19, District-Kamrup (M), Assam. -Versus- - Petitioner, 1. The State of Assam represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6, District-Kamrup (M), Assam. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited represented by its Managing Director, having its registered office at G-9, Ali Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai-4000051, 3. The Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Integrated Area Office, Guwahati, 2 Dr. B.K. Kakoti Road, Kachari Basti, Ulubari, Guwahati-781007, 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), District-Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati-781001. 5. The Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle, Guwahati-781006, District-Kamrup (M), Assam - Respondents BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI Advocates present: For the petitioner : Mr. B. Prasad, Advocate For respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 : Mr. J. Handique, Government Advocate, For respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate Date of hearing and judgement : 28.07.2016.
2 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned State counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5, and Mr. M. K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. As pleadings have been completed in respect of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and as the respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 are formal parties, learned counsel for the parties submit that this writ petition may be disposed of at the motion stage itself. 3. The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 06.06.2016, issued by the Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), whereby the candidature of the petitioner, who was selected as the eligible candidate for LPG distributorship at Hatigaon, Guwahati, was cancelled because of the discrepancies/misrepresentation in the application filed by the petitioner for that purpose to the effect that the petitioner did not own a showroom land at the advertised location. 4. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 30.09.2013, published in the The Assam Tribune for appointment of LPG distributors under various categories in various locations including one at Hatigaon (Guwahati), which is reserved for ST category candidate, the petitioner responded to the said advertisement and was invited to appear for the draw for selection of LPG distributorship. By a letter dated 27.11.2014, the petitioner was intimated that he was selected and, on being asked to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards 10% of the total security deposit, the petitioner deposited the same in favour of the IOCL. A field verification was conducted and, thereafter, based on the said report, the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure-F) came to be passed. 5. Mr. Prasad has submitted that the petitioner had identified a plot of land for the purpose of show room at Natboma, Guwahati, and, accordingly, had shown the said plot of land in his application form to be the plot of land for the showroom. According to him, Natboma is in the locality of Hatigaon and when the advertisement required that the showroom has to be located in the advertised location or locality, there could not have been any justification for holding that there was any discrepancy and/or misrepresentation in the application filed by the petitioner and in cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner does not have a showroom land in the advertised location. Mr. Prasad has drawn the attention of the Court to the certificates given by the Mouzadar, Beltola Mouza (Annexure-H), and by the Circle Officer, Dispur Revenue Circle (Annexure-I), to buttress his contention that Natboma area is commonly referred to as Hatigaon. He has submitted that the Brochure on the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors from
3 March, 2015 (Annexure-A2) (for short, Guidelines of 2015 ), annexed to the affidavit-inopposition of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, cannot be brought into play as such guidelines had been issued subsequent to issuance of the advertisement for selection of LPG distributors. He submits that the Brochure on the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors from August, 2013 (Annexure-A1 of the affidavit) (for short, Guidelines of 2013 ), would have application in the instant case as the advertisement was issued in the month of September, 2013, which visualized that the location of the showroom has to be in a shop/land located in the advertised location or locality and that is how same stipulation was incorporated in the advertisement. To support his contention that the expression locality has a wider connotation than location, he has relied upon a judgement of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brahmaputra Part II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. vs. State of Assam and Ors., reported in 2003 (1) GLT 155, as well as the expressions locality and location as explained in Oxford Advance Learner s Dictionary (5 th Edition). 6. By relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed, Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the IOCL, submits that Natboma cannot be said to be within Hatigaon location though Hatigaon may be seen as a large urban area. He emphasizes that it is not in dispute that the revenue/administrative unit of Hatigaon is different from that of Natboma. He has further submitted that the Field Verification Committee has to rely on clarificatory guidelines and circulars issued from time to time and when the guidelines of March, 2015, had clarified that the shop or plot of land for the purpose of construction of showroom has to be within the municipality/town/village limits of the place, which is mentioned under the column location in the advertisement, it was rightly concluded that the location of the showroom of the petitioner did not meet the requirements under the advertisement and, therefore, no interference is called for with regard to the letter dated 06.06.2016. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 8. The entire issue revolves around the interpretation to be given to the word locality. No doubt, the advertised location is Hatigaon, but Clause 3.b. of the notice dated 30.09.2013, under the heading showroom, has used the expression location or locality. For a better appreciation, Clause 3.b. of the notice dated 30.09.2013, is reproduced below: b. Showroom: A Showroom of minimum dimensions 3 metre as per the standard layout is to be made in a shop/land located in the advertised location or locality as specified in the advertisement for LPG distributorship and it should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. (emphasis supplied)
4 9. The aforesaid stipulation in the advertisement has been reproduced verbatim from the Guidelines of 2013. It will be also appropriate to take note of Clause 6.1 (viii) of the Guidelines of 2015, dealing with the requirement of showroom, which reads as follows: (viii) Own a suitable shop of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in outer dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) at the advertised location i.e. within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column of location in the advertisement. In case locality is also specified under the column of location in the advertisement, the candidate should own a suitable shop of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in outer dimension or a plot of land for construction of showroom of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre as on the last date for submission of application as specified either in the advertisement or corrigendum (if any) as per the standard layout in the said locality. It should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. 10. Location is made specific in the Guidelines of 2015 in the sense that it has to be within the municipal/town/village limits of the place which is mentioned under the column location. Therefore, under the guidelines of March, 2015, showroom has to be within municipal/town/village limits of the place mentioned under the column location, unless locality is also specified in the column of location in the advertisement. 11. Great reliance was placed on paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition to contend that the advertised location has to be taken note of based on the revenue record alone and that appears to be the basis on which the field verification report as well as the letter dated 06.06.2016 proceeded, totally ignoring the fact that there was another expression, namely, locality, finding place in the advertisement. 12. Natboma and Hatigaon, admittedly, are different revenue villages. The petitioner had responded to the advertisement in the year 2013 and, therefore, certainly, the analogy or clarification subsequently brought into play by the Guidelines of 2015 cannot be made applicable and, therefore, the concept of municipal/town/village limit is alien to the advertisement in question. 13. Now, the question is as to what is meant by the word locality? In Oxford Advance Learner s Dictionary (5 th Edition), the word locality is defined to mean, amongst others, a district or area, especially one near or surrounding, whereas the word location is defined to mean a place or position. Thus, the word locality seems to have a wider connotation
5 than the word location and the advertisement designedly and consciously used the expression location or locality. If both the words carry the same meaning, there would have been no occasion for the IOCL authorities to have used both the expressions location or locality. The purpose was to enlarge the area of the location to bring within its fold the neighbourhood areas. 14. In Brahmaputra Part II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. (supra), a Division Bench of this Court had observed that in ordinary and common use, the word locality is synonymous in meaning with the word neighbourhood and the word neighbourhood signifies nearness as opposed to remoteness. In Brahmaputra Part II Mach Mahal Samabai Samity Ltd. (supra), in paragraph 14, this Court had stated that neighbourhood does not express any definite idea of distance. A few feet or several hundred yards or even a greater distance from an object would be in its neighbourhood and no mathematical formula has been fixed to define and measure neighbourhood, which has an element of flexibility in it. 15. Going by the expressions used, I am of the opinion that the expression locality, in the context in which it is used, needs an interpretation so as to achieve the object and purpose for which it was incorporated and, therefore, a pragmatic and purposeful interpretation has to be given to the expression locality. The petitioner had brought on record the certificate of the Circle Officer certifying that village Natboma is commonly referred to as Hatigaon. In the certificate of the Mouzadar, Natboma is stated to be in the Hatigaon area of the city of Guwahati. There is no averment in the affidavit to the effect that the certificates do not disclose the correct state of affairs and, therefore, it is to be understood that people understand Natboma to be a part of Hatigaon locality. Going by the meaning of locality, the location of the petitioner s proposed showroom at Natboma fulfills the requirement under aforesaid Clause 3.b. 16. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated 06.06.2016 is set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The IOCL authority will take consequential action accordingly. 17. Writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. No cost. JUDGE RK
6
7