- (1.) Both the aforesaid appeals are against common and identical judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12th June 2011 passed in the aforesaid writ petition filed by Calcutta Landing and Shipping Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as CLS in short). By the impugned judgment and order the learned Trial Judge has been pleased to allow the prayers of CLS, and thereby the respondent namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HPCL in short) and its officials were directed to issue the letter of appointment to the CLS ignoring the contention of the HPCL in their letter dated 10th September 2010.
(2.) The first mentioned appeal has been preferred by the HPCL which was party to the writ petition, while in the second one the appellants were not a party, and having prima facie satisfied as to their affectation of right leave was granted by the Court to prefer appeal against the same very judgment and order. Since the issue raised and involved and further decision rendered therein by the learned Trial Judge are common and identical so it was decided by this Court to be heard analogously and a common judgment would be delivered. Accordingly we need to set out the short facts which gives rise to filing of the writ petition and preferring first mentioned appeal hereunder: Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the petroleum companies including the HPCL the writ petitioner/respondent (CLS) filed an application for obtaining dealership in open category of HPCL for Howrah area in the district of Howrah being Serial No. 62 of the list mentioned in the advertisement. After selection process being undertaken the CLS came to be second successful candidate. On scrutiny of the application of the first successful candidate and upon verification of the proposed site of the showroom and godowns HPCL was not satisfied with the facility and infrastructure offered by the first candidate hence its candidature was rejected. Accordingly automatic choice came to be with CLS. It is an admitted case that while applying, C.L.S. has specifically mentioned that required godown and showroom would be located within the Howrah Municipal area being Ward No. 49. After considering all the aspects on 16th January 2010 HPCL issued a conditional Letter of Intent in favour of C.L.S. wherein it was specifically mentioned that the said Letter of intent would be subject to result of an appeal pending before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court being APOT 228 of 2011 (CLS vs. HPCL). In the said conditional provisional letter of intent various conditions were stipulated. CLS thereafter in response to the said letter dated 10th January 2010 by letter dated 27th January 2010 supplied all the information and details as required in the said conditional letter of intent. On 25th February 2010 HPCL issued an unconditional Letter of Intent in continuation of the Conditional Letter of Intent dated 16th January 2010. The said confirmed Letter of Intent was issued after interview being taken by CLS on 11th March 2008 and considering the letter dated 27th January 2010. The relevant portion of the said confirmed Letter of Intent dated 25th February 2010 is set out as follows: We have considered the reply on the clarifications/information sought by us and provided by you vide your letter dated 27.01.2010 for new LPG dealership at Howrah. 1. Please be informed that by this Letter of Intent we propose to offer you the dealership at Howrah, District Howrah, State West Bengal, on the following terms and conditions: 2. (a) To operate the distributorship, you will develop the facilities required as mentioned by you in clause No. 13A1 and 13B1. You will construct godown for storing minimum 8000 kgs, LPG filled in cylinders on the land as mentioned in your application dated 07.11.2007, Similarly the showroom, as mentioned in your application dated 07.11.2007 is to be provided as per Corporation's standard layout and colour scheme along with telephone connection, within a period of 4 months from the date of this letter.
(3.) There are other conditions in the said Letter of Intent we do not think those to be relevant and proper for deciding the issue herein: Conditions mentioned in the said confirmed Letter of Intent was accepted by CLS and the latter altered its position by making all arrangements for constructing required godown and showroom at the location as mentioned in their application dated 7th November 2007 which has also been accepted. All permissions and licenses as required from various authorities were also obtained. Even a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- on account of security for supply of the gas and cylinders has been deposited. After having everything made ready and after intimation being given for operating the dealership, HPCL did not take any action for issuance of formal Letter of Appointment and for entering into formal contract. In the confirmed letter of Intent it was specially mentioned that the writ petitioner shall complete everything ready within the time stipulated therein failing which consequence would follow.;