Disposed¶45

Chandana Goswami Sarma v. Union of India and 11 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Mar 2026WP(C)/2826/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BPCL retail outlet dealership; surrender of Letter of Intent; advertisement dated 31.10.2010; LoI dated 03.06.2011; NOC dated 15.12.2011; security deposit Rs. 3 lakh; Rs. 1 lakh for other heads; approach road development cost about 200 meters; mandamus refused for refund; consideration by speaking order; NHAI fresh proposal guidelines; failed mediation; Gauhati High Court; WP(C)/2826/2023; Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.; order dated 12.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to surrender the Letter of Intent; any application for refund of the security and other deposits to be considered by BPCL in accordance with law and disposed of by a speaking order. ¶45

Chandana Goswami Sarma Vs Union of India and 11 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶45

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus should be issued directing the respondents to install the retail outlet dealership pursuant to the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner. +3 more

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Since public interest is directly connected with the installation of the retail outlet and further delay would not be in sync with that requirement, the Court allowed the petitioner to surrender the Letter of Intent.

¶44

Key takeaways

No mandamus could be issued for refund of the security and other amounts, as the matter lies within the domain of BPCL, which had floated the tender process.ratio¶44
If an application for refund of the security and other amounts is made, it may be considered in accordance with law and disposed of by a speaking order.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WP(C)/2826/2023, Gauhati High Court, Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J., order dated 12.03.2026) by a selectee for a BPCL retail outlet dealership. Following BPCL's advertisement dated 31.10.2010, a Letter of Intent dated 03.06.2011 and NOC dated 15.12.2011 were issued in the petitioner's favour, and she deposited Rs. 3 lakh as security and Rs. 1 lakh towards other heads; the outlet was nonetheless never installed, and a dispute arose because development and construction of the about 200-metre approach road had to be borne by her, which she asserted was not contemplated at the bidding stage and was beyond her capacity. She sought mandamus directing installation of the dealership per the LoI; during hearing she instead sought leave to surrender the LoI with liberty to apply for refund. Held: (i) in view of the public interest in timely installation of the retail outlet, the petitioner was permitted to surrender the Letter of Intent; (ii) no mandamus could issue for refund of the deposits, the matter lying within the domain of BPCL as the tender-floater; and (iii) any refund application, if made, may be considered in accordance with law and disposed of by a speaking order. Petition disposed of. No statute or precedent discussed.

Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010100002023

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2826/2023

¶6

CHANDANA GOSWAMI SARMA

¶7

W/O JATINDRA KUMAR SARMA PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLMUGURIA, PO- PATHSALA AND TEMPORARY RESIDENT OF VILLBHATTADEVNAGAR, P.O RAIPUR PS- PATACHRKUCHI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN - 781325

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

UNION OF INDIA AND 11 ORS.

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI- 110001.

¶11

2:THE SECRETARY

¶12

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

¶13

TRANSPORT BHAWAN PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI- 110001

¶14

3:BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE)

¶15

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BHARAT BHAWAN 4 AND 6 CURRIMBHOY ROAD BALLARD ESTATE. POST BOX NO- 688 MUMBAI-400001

¶16

4:NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER G-5 AND 6 SECTOR-10

¶17

Page No.# 2/6

¶18

DWARKA NEW DELHI- 110075

¶19

5:THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED

¶20

NJP TOP PO- BHAKTINAGAR DIST- JALPAIGURI WEST BENGAL PIN-734007

¶21

6:THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED

¶22

1ST FLOOR NEXIA PARK GMCH ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005 7:THE SALES OFFICER (RETAIL) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED 1ST FLOOR NEXIA PARK GMCH ROAD CHRISTIAN BASTI GUWAHATI- 781005 ASSAM. 8:THE REGIONAL OFFICER MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS HOUSE NO - 7 2ND FIOOR RAJGARH ROAD CHANDMARI GUWAHATI- 781003 9:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (T) AND REGIONAL OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA NEDFI HOUSE 4TH FLOOR GS ROAD DISPUR GUWAHATI- 6 10:THE MANAGER (T) NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT (PIU) HOUSE NO-1 1ST FLOOR DILIP HUZURI PATH NEAR BAGHESWARI MANDIR SORUMOTORIA GUWAHATI-6 11:THE PROJECT DIRECTOR PIU- GUWAHATI NHAI H NO- 1 1ST FLOOR DILIP HUZURI PATH NEAR BAGESWARI MANDIR SORUMOTORIA DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 12:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST- BARPETA (ASSAM) PIN- 78130

¶25

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS. U HAZARIKA,MS CHITRALEKHA DAS

¶26

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, BPCL,MR. S BORTHAKUR,SC, NHAI,GA, ASSAM

¶27

BEFORE

¶28

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶29

ORDER

¶30

12.03.2026

¶31

Heard Shri KR Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, BPCL; Shri C. Boruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI; Shri J. Handique, learned State Counsel and Shri AK Dutta, learned CGC.

¶32

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶33

Page No.# 4/6

¶34

’’In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to install the Retail Outlet dealership as per the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner (Annexure-2) after observing all the formalities without any delay and / or cause or causes being shown, if any and on perusal of records and after hearing the parties be further pleased to make Rule absolute and / or pass any other order/orders or direction as your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.’’

¶35

As per the facts projected, pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.10.2010 published in the Assam Tribune by the BPCL for appointment of retail outlet dealership in various locations in the State of Assam, the petitioner, who claimed herself to be eligible had applied for such appointment for the location against Sl. No.15. Accordingly, after completion of formalities, the petitioner was found suitable and Letter of Intent dated 03.06.2011 was issued in her favour. Subsequently, NOC dated 15.12.2011 was also issued with the permission for lease of the land in question. It is however projected that the retail outlet was not installed within the period of one year and in the meantime, the NHAI have requested to submit fresh proposal as per the guidelines. Though the petitioner has claimed to have submitted all the land documents, no steps were taken to lease out the land as well as to install the retail outlet.

¶36

Shri Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has, in the meantime, deposited the security amount of Rs.3 (three) lakh and a further amount of Rs.1 (one) lakh for other Heads in spite of which, no steps have been taken for installation of the retail outlet. He has however

¶37

Page No.# 5/6

¶38

submitted that another aspect has cropped up with regard to the approach road and it transpires that the development and construction of the approach road which is about a distance of 200 meters have to be borne by the petitioner. He has categorically submitted that the said aspect was not within the contemplation while submitting the bid and would otherwise incur a huge expenditure which is beyond the capacity of the petitioner.

¶39

Shri Borthakur, learned Standing Counsel, BPCL has submitted that in the advertisement itself there was sufficient indication regarding the development of the site which has to be at the cost of the bidder. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 7 of the advertisement which is with regard to provision of basic facilities at the retail outlet and under sub-clause (b) there is a clear mention of development of the land, driveway, compound wall, etc.

¶40

Shri Boruah, learned Standing Counsel, NHAI has submitted that the guidelines have been issued in the public interest and such guidelines are otherwise also not the subject matter of challenge.

¶41

This Court, on noticing the dispute had earlier referred the matter for an amicable settlement by Mediation. However, the Mediation had failed mainly for the reason that the officers of the respondent did not attend the same. However, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that due to certain miscommunication, the mediation could not be attended.

¶42

Shri Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated that as per instruction received, it would not be feasible on the part of the petitioner to construct the road which would incur a huge expenditure. He accordingly submits that he may be allowed to surrender the LoI so that the aspect of allotment can be taken forward by the BPCL by appointing any suitable person for the said purpose. He has also submitted that liberty be granted to the

¶43

Page No.# 6/6

¶44

petitioner to file an application for refund of the security and other deposits. 9. After considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that since public interest is directly connected with the installation of the retail outlet, further delay would not be in sync with such requirement. Accordingly, this Court allows the petitioner to surrender the Letter of Intent. As regards the prayer for consideration of refund of the security and other amount, this Court is of the opinion that no Mandamus, as such can be issued as the same would be a matter within the domain of the BPCL which had floated the tender process. However, it is observed that in case such an application for refund of the security and other amount is made, the same may be considered in accordance with law and disposed of by a speaking order.

¶45

This writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

Comparing Assistant

Chandana Goswami Sarma v. Union of India and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandana Goswami Sarma v. Union of India and 11 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prafulla Dutta Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Panchatantra Tours and Travels Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Rajendra Jv Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Shahinur Rahman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Nikhil Bishnupriya Manipuri Mahasabha and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gautam Banerjee Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.