- (1.) Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that pursuant to the advertisement published on 27.2.2004. (Annexure -1), petitioner applied against serial no. 22 for the place 'Bonga' which was meant for scheduled caste (women) candidate. She was selected and granted letter of intent (LOI) by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation. Thereafter, another advertisement was published on 28.1 .2006 (Annexure -3) inviting offers for retail outlet dealers at 72 places. Serial No. 46 of this notice shows the place as "Hazaribagh (from District More to Bariat) at NH -33". It is further submitted that 'Bonga' falls within the said stretch from District More to Bariat and therefore, for 'Bonga', no advertisement could have been issued for a general candidate. It is further submitted that the petitioner was/is agreeable for both the options and she is ready to provide the land for allotting retail outlet.
(2.) MR . Shivnath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent -Corporation submitted that firstly ,the petitioner suppressed the fact about filing of earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7012 of 2007 in which she inter alia prayed not to grant no objection certificate to the respondent -Corporation on its letter dated 1.11.2007. He relied on (2010)4 SCC 728 and submitted that this writ petition should be dismissed only on the ground of suppression of material fact. Secondly, on merits, he submitted that Annexure -1 and Annexure -3 are absolutely distinct and separate schemes. In Annexure -1, it is clearly indicated that the land is to be arranged and outlet is to be made by the Corporation for running the same, whereas under Annexure -3 scheme, the land is to be provided by the party itself. He submitted that incidentally, out of 72 places covered under Annexure -3 scheme, 'Bonga' falls between the said stretch of NH -33 and therefore, in the letter dated 1.11 .2007 for obtaining no objection, 'Bonga' was mentioned. He further submitted that in spite of best efforts, the Corporation could not get land at 'Bonga' for opening a retail outlet as per Annexure -1 scheme and therefore, the claim of the petitioner is still alive, but the land offered by the petitioner is not acceptable as the Corporation is not satisfied that the petitioner has derived any right, title and interest under the documents of land furnished by her. He further submitted that in any event, only the grant of letter of intent in favour of the petitioner did not create any right in her favour. He relied on the order dated 16.7.2009 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1167 of 2008. He also submitted that after allotment of retail outlet was made in favour of respondent no. 6 in the year 2007 and substantial amount was invested by the Corporation, the petitioner is raising untenable objections. Mr. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6, submitted that respondent no. 6 was rightly allotted the retail outlet under Annexure -3 scheme.
(3.) IT appears that Annexure -1 and Annexure -3 schemes are different and separate. Respondent NO.6 has been allotted the retail outlet under Annexure -3 scheme. Petitioner's claim under Annexure -1 scheme is still alive subject to the availability of land. Decision with regard to the proper land and site, etc. are within the domain of the Corporation. The grant of retail outlet under different schemes are commercial activities of the Corporation.;