Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed a communication dated March 5, 2019 of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (B.P.C.L.) by which, B.P.C.L. informed the petitioner that, the candidature of the petitioner for award of retail outlet dealership at Mothbari, Block - Minakha towards Sonakhali RHS on Basanti Highway, District North 24 Parganas, under open category advertised on November 25, 2018, stands cancelled.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, B.P.C.L. issued an advertisement dated November 25, 2018 inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealership. The petitioner applied on December 13, 2018. The application was made On-line as the terms and conditions of the advertisement required the application to be made On-line. It also required that, B.P.C.L. authorities would communicate with the petitioner On-line. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the brochure of selection of dealers for regular and retail outlets dated November 24, 2018 and the guidelines on selection of dealers for regular and retail outlets through draw of lots/ bidding process. He has referred Clause 14 C, D and E of the brochure. He has submitted that, Clause 14 E of the brochure requires B.P.C.L. to communicate the status of the application through Electronic Mail and Short Message Services (e-mail/SMS). The e-mail identity of the petitioner as well as the mobile number of the petitioner was provided to B.P.C.L. He has submitted that, Clause 14 E of the brochure requiring communication by e-mail/SMS has to be read to mean that, B.P.C.L. is required to communicate the information by e-mail as well as SMS. According to him, the clause has to be read conjunctively. He has relied upon an 3 unreported decision of the Division Bench rendered in G.A. No. 1800 of 2011 A.P.O.T. No. 261 of 2011 W.P. No. 144 of 2010 (Barun Ghosh v. Goutam Kumar Saha & Ors.) dated September 1, 2011 in support of his contention.
(3.) Referring to the facts of the case, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner after having submitted the application On-line on December 13, 2018 received a SMS dated January 11, 2019. The SMS required the petitioner to refer to the e-mail for details. The petitioner checked its e-mail and did not find any e-mail from B.P.C.L. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated January 14, 2019 to B.P.C.L. The petitioner was then informed that the petitioner will receive the e-mail and should keep a watch on the inbox. Even after expiry of 10 days thereafter since the petitioner did not receive any further e-mail in her inbox, the petitioner made a second representation to B.P.C.L. Again B.P.C.L. authorities requested the petitioner to watch her inbox for the e-mail. On February 1, 2019, the petitioner made a representation to B.P.C.L. when, the authorities informed the petitioner that two e-mails dated January 11, 2019 and January 21, 2019 were sent to the petitioner to which, the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner thereafter checked not only the inbox but also the spam mail of the petitioner whereupon, the petitioner found the e-mail dated January 11, 2019 and January 21, 2019 of B.P.C.L. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner by a writing dated February 5, 2019 informed B.P.C.L. that, as the e-mails dated January 11, 2019 and January 21, 2019 of B.P.C.L. were in the spam box of the petitioner, the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not reacting to the requisitions made in the two e-mails within time. The petitioner sought permission to submit the initial security deposit along with required documents at the earliest.;