Arunachal Petrol Pump Dealership | Author Of Tender Document Best Placed To Interpret Its Terms: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has held that constitutional courts should ordinarily defer to the interpretation placed on tender documents by the authority that framed them and should interfere only when such interpretation is arbitrary, irrational, malafide or perverse.

Upholding a Single Judge's decision rejecting the challenge to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited's refusal to award petrol pump dealership, the division bench of Justice Kardak Ete and Justice Budi Habung observed:

"The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation of the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity". 

An intra-court appeal was filed against the order of February 27, 2025, passed by the Single Bench wherein the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed, and the decision of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited rejecting petitioner's selection for a contract was upheld. The petitioner had applied for the award of Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealership but was rejected on the ground that he did not possess a valid Land Possession Certificate as required under Clause 4(vi) of the Guidelines for Selection of Dealers for Regular/Rural Retail Outlets (Guidelines)

Per the facts, HPCL (respondent no 2) issued a notice in 2023 inviting applications for petrol pump dealership at various locations, including the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Category, applied under Group 1, offering his own land situated at 16 Km, Potin area, at Village Billo, Yazali, Lower Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh.

The petitioner's application was provisionally selected under Group 1, and he was directed to deposit ₹30,000 and upload requisite documents therein. The petitioner deposited the prescribed amount and submitted the documents. However, his candidature was rejected because no Land Possession Certificate (LPC) was available and the Land Availability Certificate submitted by the appellant was not valid in terms of Rule 143 of the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Rules, 2012. The petitioner was informed that his candidature could be considered in Group 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition. 

The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that although the objection raised by HPCL regarding the Land Availability Certificate issued by the Circle Officer was not sustainable, the petitioner had failed to satisfy the requirement of producing a valid Land Possession Certificate (LPC) evidencing ownership of the offered land as on the date of submission of the application, as contemplated under Clause 4(vi) of the Guidelines for Selection of Dealers for Regular/Rural Retail Outlet Dealerships.

The senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the Single Judge had committed a manifest error in holding that he did not possess a valid LPC as required under Clause 4 of the Guidelines. It was argued that the Single Judge failed to appreciate that the petitioner had furnished a Land Availability Certificate (LAC) which was issued by the Circle Officer certifying the status of ownership. 

The senior counsel further contended that the Circle Officer is a Revenue Officer under the Arunachal Pradesh (Land Settlement and Records) Act, 2000 and is duly competent to issue a certificate relating to ownership and availability of land. Further, it was argued that the Single Judge bench itself noted that the LAC issued by the Circle Officer could not have been rejected. Therefore, the Single Judge ought not to have rejected the petitioner's writ petition.

It was argued that the LPC that was subsequently issued in respect of the very same land merely corroborated the ownership already reflected in the LAC and could not be treated as creating fresh title in favour of the petitioner.

The counsel for HPCL, favouring the Single Judge order, contended that the petitioner failed to produce a valid LPC issued on or before the date of submission of the application as mandated under Clause 4 of the Guidelines. It was argued that the petitioner submitted his application in September 2023, whereas the LPC was issued subsequently and therefore his candidature was rightly rejected. 

The counsel for HPCL argued that the LAC issued by the circle officer cannot be treated as a valid ownership document under the Guidelines and that, as per the 2000 Act, only the Deputy Commissioner or other such competent authority can issue an LPC. 

The bench examined clause 4 of the Guidelines, which governs the selection of dealers through a draw of lots/ bidding process. The court noted that the guidelines categorise the applicants into three groups, Group 1, 2 and 3 depending upon the nature of the land being offered by them along with the application. 

The court noted that the applicant was required to upload Khasra/Khatauni or any other equivalent revenue document or a certificate obtained from a Revenue Officer confirming the status of ownership of the land as on the date of application. The court noted that the Guidelines stipulated that prescribed ownership documents must be executed, registered or issued on or before the date of application. 

Thus the bench held, "Admittedly, while the appellant submitted his application on 22.09.2023, the Land Possession Certificate relied upon by him was issued only on 12.12.2023. Thus, although the fact that the appellant uploaded the documents within the time stipulated by the respondent HPCL, the Land Possession Certificate was not a document issued on or before the date of submission of the application. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the rejection of the appellant's candidature under Group-1, notwithstanding his provisional selection, cannot be said to be illegal". 

Finding no arbitrariness or perversity, the bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Single Judge. 

Case Title: Taba Tagia v Union of India, 2026:GAU-AP:688-DB

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate T. T. Tara with Advocate G Bam

For Union: Deputy Solicitor General M. Kato with Advocate T. Tapak

Click here to read/download the Order