HARESWAR DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge made in this writ petition is the selection of the respondent No. 5 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership (R. O. D. ).

(2.) IN response to Annexure-A notice for appointment published in the issue of the "asamia Pratidin" dated 06. 05. 05, the petitioner submitted his application on 08. 06. 05 in the prescribed format along with supporting documents. The notice was issued for appointment of R. O. Ds. in various locations in Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya and Manipur. The locations were also indicated in the notice and the petitioner submitted his application for Digboi-Bogapani N. H. 38 in the revenue District of Tinsukia. The locations were indicated as "at or in vicinity of the locality. "

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he has shown suitable plot of land within the vicinity of the location for which dealership was to be offered. The land offered by the petitioner is situated at Borhil-2, Digboi, Survey No. 29, Hissa No. , P. Patta 12 on N. H. 38 details of which were indicated in the application. The respondent No. 5 and 6 have shown their respective land at a place called Tingrai under Makum P. S. , Dist. Tinsukia. It is the case of the petitioner that the respective land shown by the respondents No. 5 and 6 is not in the vicinity of the location, but outside the vicinity.