- (1.) S. R. Alam, J. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner made a prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus cammanding the Indo-Burma Petroleum Company Limited (respon dent No. 4) to issue a letter of intent and further to permit the petitioner to open a petrol pump at the site approved by the respondents.
(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the peti tioner made an application in the year 1977 before respondents for getting the dealership of Petrol Pump on Delhi-Mathura Road in the district of Mathura. The petitioner also proposed the site for opening such petrol pump which was subsequently approved by the respondent No. 4, but before a final decision could be taken, the said land was acquired by the State Government for the U P. State Industrial Development Corporation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter the petitioner approached the U. P. State Industrial Corporation Limited for allotment ot a site to open the proposed petrol pump, which was subsequently allotted to him by the Corporation vide allotment letter dated 1-12-1977 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition ). Subse quently the petitioner applied for the dealership to the respondent No. 3 on 8- 1-1978 and a formal agreement was made between the petitioner and the respondents vide agreement dated 6-2-1978 which has been annexed with this writ petition as Annexure 4. Thereafter by letter dated 30-8-1978 the respon dent No. 4 informed the petitioner that the present policy of the company does not permit progressing of the retail outlet proposal at the proposed location any further therefore their letter dated 2-5-1977 may be treated as cancelled. The writ petitioner, thereafter made various representations before the respon dents and when no final decision was taken the present writ petition was filed in the year 1986, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that after the agreement dated 6*2-1978 made between the petitioner and the respondents, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue a letter of intent for opening a petrol pump on the approved site. He further urged that the respondents are bound by the promise made, and the petitioner can invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the respondents Nos. 2 to 5. In support of his submission he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies reported in AIR 1968 SC 710 and M. B. Sugar Mills Company v. State of U. P. , reported in AIR 1979 SC 621. The respondents Nos. 2 to 5 have filed a common counter-affidavit raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground of inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioner as well as that the respondents is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that the letter dated 6-2-1978 (Annexure 4) is not a concluded contract and it does not bind the respondents. Moreover the petitioner having tailed to comply with the terms given in the letter dated 6-2-1978 cannot now enforce the same. It was further submitted that the facts of the present case is not similar to that of Anglo Afghan Agencies (supra) or M. P. Sugar Mills (supra) and therefore it does not support the contention of the petitioner.
(3.) THE petitioner made a proposal opening a petrol pump at the proposed site vide letter dated 8-1- 1978 to which the respondents communi cated their willingness vide letter dated 6-2-1978 to accept the grant of licence as a vendor of Company's product to enter upon the premises and to use the filling station/service station in common with the company on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. One of the condition was that the petitioner was required to sign the standard form of licence, which was sent alongwith the letter dated 6-2-1978, and returned back to the respondent. Clause 4 of the aforesaid letter further provides that the petitioner should sign the enclosed carbon copy of. the letter in token of his acceptance and sent it back along with a back demand draft of Rs. 26,000 was security deposit. Clause 4 of the letter dated 6-2-1978 runs as follows : "if you are agreeable to the above terms, please sign and return the enclosed carbon copy of this letter in token of your acceptance, together with a back demand draft for the security deposit of Rs. 26,000. This offer is open upto. " Admittedly the petitioner did not sign and return the enclosed carbon copy alongwith a bank demand draft for the security deposit of Rs. 26,000 in token of his acceptance as required in Clause 4 of the said letter dated 6-2-1978. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since no time limit was prescribed in the aforesaid letter dated 6-2-1978, non-deposit of the security amount and signing the carbon copy would not make the agreement invalid. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.;