Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21/23.12.2013 (Annex. 9) withdrawing/cancelling the letter of intent issued in favour of the petitioner.
(2.) The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.2.12 (Annex. 1) issued by the respondent - Indian Oil Corporation inviting applications for appointment of the Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Distributorship, the petitioner had applied for the same under the category of Scheduled Tribe candidate for village Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur. Thereafter the respondents informed the petitioner vide letter dated 31.12.12 (Annex. 2) regarding his selection for the distributorship. According to the petitioner, thereafter the Controller of Explosives, Faridabad also approved the lay out and construction plan of the proposed storage facilities as per the letter dated 6.5.13 (Annex. 6), however vide letter dated 7.11.13 (Annex. 7), the Chief Area Manager, informed the petitioner that the letter of intent issued in his favour was proposed to be withdrawn on the grounds mentioned therein, and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation, if any, in that regard. The petitioner therefore submitted the reply dated 12.11.13 (Annex. 8). However, the concerned respondents have cancelled/withdrawn the letter of intent with immediate effect vide the letter dated 21st/23rd December, 2013 (Annex. 9).
(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Goyal for the petitioner that the respondents relying upon the so -called vigilance report have cancelled the letter of intent, without supplying the copy of such report to the petitioner. According to him the petitioner had given detailed explanation to the show cause notice dated 7.11.13 contending inter alia that earlier the alternate land offered by him was gifted by his father vide registered gift -deed dated 9.3.12 and the same was entered in the revenue record in the name of the petitioner on 28.3.12, however subsequently the partition had taken place between the co -tenant of the entire land and the said land had fallen into the share of his father. He also submitted that there was no contradiction in facts with regard to the ownership of land offered by the petitioner and the respondents had acted arbitrarily at the instance of the respondent No. 5, who had also applied for the said distributorship.;