MIR DARA SHEKO,J. - (1.) Upon consent of both parties the appeal and the application for stay are heard together, which were filed by the appellants/ respondent Nos. 1 to 8, who will be called on hereafter as the appellants, assailing the Judgment dated 18th May, 2016 in W.P. No.17807 (W) of 2015 (Priyanku Bakshi v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and 7 Others) by which the letter dated 14th July, 2015 bearing order of withdrawal of Letter of Intent, issued by the Chief Area Manager, Kolkata Area Office to the respondent/writ petitioner was set aside and quashed with direction to revisit the issue in the light of the observations indicated in the judgment after giving an opportunity to the respondent/ writ petitioner, who will be called on hereafter as the respondent, within the period, stipulated therein.
(2.) The admitted facts of the case are :- (i) The respondent Priyanku Bakshi (Swarnkar) was married with Sanjit Bakshi on 11th day of March, 2009 and out of their wedlock they have one son. (ii) On completion of selection process Licence dated 28.03.2012 in connection with LOA dated 29.11.2011 was issued in favour of Sanjit Bakshi awarding dealership by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at the site at Itapukuria under P.S. - Chakda, District - Nadia for its commissioning in the name and style "Bakshi Filling Station". (iii) Said Sanjit Bakshi submitted resignation letter on 1st October, 2012 expressing his difficulties in commissioning the dealership. (iv) The respondent swearing one notarized affidavit as per the format on 10th October, 2012, and by disclosing herself as the "wife of Sri Sanjit Bakshi" submitted application on 11th October, 2012 before the appellant no.8 for LPG distributorship at Barrackpore within District-24 Parganas(N) under Scheduled Caste quota, since she was having such scheduled caste certificate dated 9th June, 1998 issued by the competent authority. (v) In turn the appellant No.8 issued letter dated 12th April, 2013 informing the respondent to attend the draw of lottery on 6th May, 2013 at the scheduled venue for selection of LPG Distributorship. (vi) The appellant No.8 on 19th August, 2013 issued offer letter to the respondent with all as usual conditions since she was held for selection by draw at Kolkata Area Office on 06.05.2013. (vii) The IOCL ultimately accepted resignation of Sanjit Bakshi by issuing letter dated 19th August, 2013. (viii) The respondent obtained renewed certificate of enlistment dated 5th May, 2014 from Barrackpore Municipality for carrying Gas Supply office as the proposed proprietor/partner of Barrackpore Jagannath Indane for the year 2014- 2015, where the respondent was also described as the wife "of Sanjit Bakshi". (ix) The Additional District Magistrate (General) 24 Parganas (N) on 5th September, 2014 informed appellant No.8 about no objection in storing LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas) at the site at Barrackpore where also the respondent was described as the "w/o Sanjit Bakshi". (x) Pending decision of grant and issuance of LOA for commissioning LPG distributorship at Barrackpore in favour of the respondent, her husband Sanjit Bakshi submitted complaint on 18th July, 2014 before appellant No.8 to terminate the purported LPG Distributorship for which the respondent was persuading. (xi) The respondent pursued for placement of LOA for LPG distributorship in her name at her desired site at Barrackpore, which was received at the office of appellant No.8 on 23rd February, 2015, where she disclosed Sanjit Bakshi as her "exhusband". (xii) The respondent only on 15th May, 2015, obtained decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act in Matrimonial Suit No.113 of 2015 (renumbered from Matrimonial Suit 1732 of 2014), which was supposed to have been filed before six months, may be expectedly sometimes prior to November, 2014. (xiii) On 22nd June, 2015 the respondent further pursued to issue LOA in respect of Letter of Intent dated 19th August, 2013 in the name and style of "Barrackpore Jagannath Indane" where she disclosed herself as "a Divorcee" preceded by earlier information sent on 15th June, 2015. (xiv) The appellant ultimately by issuing the impugned letter dated 14th July, 2015 to the respondent Priyanku Bakshi informed, "Competent authority has approved withdrawal of your LOI for the distributorship at the location Barrackpore, Dist:24 Pgs (N), under "SC" category, as per policy. Accordingly, the LOI issued to you stands withdrawn".
(3.) Learned Writ Court set aside and quashed the letter dated 14th July, 2015 (supra) on the findings which are set out hereunder for convenience of appreciation:- (a) "I find that admittedly the petitioner's exhusband's resignation letter dated 1st October, 2012 has been accepted and the dealership agreement dated 19th March, 2012 was terminated by the oil company by issuing the letter dated 19th August, 2013 and on the self same date i.e. on 19th August, 2013 by another letter the Indian Oil Corporation awarded LOI in favour of the petitioner against the vacancy with the instruction for construction of godown and show room and for arrangement of fund". (b) "On the date of affirmation of affidavit on 10th October, 2012 and on the submission of application i.e. on 11th October, 2012 the exhusband of the petitioner was neither a licensee nor a LOI holder of retail outlet dealership as he has submitted his resignation on 1st October, 2012". (c) "It is the gross negligence on the part of the oil company to keep such resignation letter pending for about one year and only prior to issuance of LOI in favour of the petitioner, accepted that resignation on 19th August, 2013". (d) "It is also not explained by the oil company as to why the resignation letter dated 1st October, 2012/8th October, 2012 was accepted at a belated stage on 19th August, 2013 though from the record it is evident that the petitioner applied against the vacancy on 11th October, 2012 and admittedly on the 1st October, 2012 the petitioner's ex-husband submitted his resignation". "It is the deliberate negligence on the part of the oil company to accept the said resignation within the reasonable time, but unfortunately it was not done by the oil company. The oil company had the duty to act but they refrained to do so, therefore, belated acceptance of resignation letter should not adversely affect the petitioner and form a ground of withdrawal of LOI of the petitioner, the oil company could not take advantage of their prolonged inaction". (e) "When the application for resignation of Sri Sanjit Bakshi was received by the company on 8th October, 2012 the respondent oil company could have rejected the petitioner's application on 11th October, 2012 only on the sole ground that resignation tendered by Sri Sanjit Bakshi received on 8th October, 2012 has been under process and since that has not been accepted till that date". (f) "It also creates some cloud of doubt in the mind of the Court that the oil company was sitting tight over the application of Sanjit Bakshi for a long period and only on 19th August, 2013 the petitioner's ex-husband namely Sri Sanjit Bakshi's application for resignation was accepted and on the self same date the petitioner was offered with the LOI by the oil company". (g) "On the basis of the said application lodged by Sri Bakshi on 21st July, 2014 the respondent oil company has withdrawn the petitioner's LOI inter alia on the ground that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in respect of multiple dealership (Clause No.4) was found to be untrue. Accordingly, on the basis of the LOI condition under Column No.9.2 and 9.3 the said LOI was withdrawn. But in my considered view the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in respect of multiple dealership to some extent cannot be treated as a false one as admittedly when the petitioner applied against the said vacancy on 11th October, 2012, the petitioner's ex-husband submitted his resignation much prior to that i.e. on 1st October, 2012". (h) "Pursuant to the LOI the petitioner has already expended huge amount of fund for obtaining different licences from different authorities and also generated a huge fund for construction of godown and show room". (i) "The petitioner requires this dealership business for her livelihood, maintenance and survival, being otherwise eligible to obtain the same". ;