Arindam Sinha, J. - (1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of advertisement published on 31st August, 2017 by corrigendum dated 16th October, 2018 to effect change in description of location from Rampurhat Block-II to Rampurhat Block I. Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner had on 19th November, 2018 formulated his two points of challenge. Firstly, this change in location brought about was not duly done by public sector Oil Companies determining necessity of effecting change, siting together. His second contention was, in any event, his client cannot be deprived from grant of distributorship since information in impugned letter relates to anomalies but of same location. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Oil Company files affidavit-ofopposition to which reply is also filed.
(2.) Mr. Mukherjee points out from his client's affidavit following statements were made in paragraph 9 of it :- "9. Since it was noted that advertised location Rampurhat is not falling under the block Rampurhat II as mentioned in the advertisement the said anomaly was brought in the industry level meeting on 10.10.2018 for a re-advertisement so that intention of benefiting general public of the advertised location is met. An industry level note was prepared and same was sent for re advertisement. A communication was also sent to all previous applicants to re-apply as well informing them that all fees deposited with Corporation will be remitted back vide letter dated 22.10.2018."
(3.) He refers to industry note dated 10th October, 2018 of industry meeting on re-advertisement of locations advertised on 31st August, 2017. Annexure 'B' to the note mentions Rampurhat Block-II has to be changed to Rampurhat Block-I.;