RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR,J. - (1.) The petitioners assail a communication dated 4 March, 2008 issued by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), the respondent no.1.
(2.) The brief facts of this case are that in or about 2002, the respondent authorities introduced a policy for selection of retail outlet dealers. The policy inter-alia dealt with procedure for marketing and selection of retail dealerships. The policy also introduced the concept of Company Owned Company Operated ("COCO") outlets which permitted the oil companies to run and operate their own outlets as model retail outlets.
(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid, the respondent no.1 invited bids for such retail outlets. The petitioner no.1 was the owner of the land in the proposed area (Barrackpore Kalyani Express Way) and participated in an open bid for the purposes of setting up a "COCO" outlet. The petitioner no.2 is the son of the first petitioner's brother-in-law. It is alleged that the petitioners were approached by one Sri N.A. Biswas who was then the Chief Regional Manager of the respondent no. 1 and diverse representations were made by him on behalf of the respondent no. 1. Relying on such representations, the petitioner no. 1 and the respondent no.1 executed a registered lease deed dated 26 March, 2004. As a temporary measure the respondent no.1 appointed a maintenance handling contractor. Subsequently, an agreement was executed on 1 December, 2006 between the petitioner no.2 and the respondent no.1 for handling and maintenance of the particular "COCO" retail outlet for a period of one year. By a letter dated 5 March, 2007 the petitioner no.2 unequivocally undertook that he would not claim any right in respect of the outlet after expiry of the stipulated period of one year. On 19 November, 2007, the agreement for handling the retail outlet was extended for a further period of one year i.e. upto 30 November, 2008. In or about September, 2006, the respondent no.1 issued fresh guidelines pertaining to operations of such "COCO" retail outlets whereby a policy decision was taken by the respondent no.1 to phase out such "COCO" retail outlets within one year. Under the guidelines the respondent no.1 was to offer the temporary "COCO" retail outlets to the pending letter of intent holders under various categories inter alia Corpus Fund Schemes, SC, ST categories, widows and women above forty years of age without earning parents.;