- (1.)CONTROVERSY which crops up for consideration in the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India falls within a narrow compass as to whether the respondents are justified in their action of cancelling the letter of Intent for Kerosene/ldo dealership.
(2.)THE relevant facts for proper appreciation briefly are that in response to the advertisement for allotment of Kerosene/ldo dealership at Panchsheel Nagar, bhopal, the petitioner applied for the allotment in the proforma prescribed by the respondent oil company, respondent no. 2. The petitioner was interviewed by the dealer Selection Board on 8. 5. 2002 and was placed at serial no. 1 of the selection list dated 9. 5. 2002. A letter of Intent dated 21. 6. 2002 was issued to the effect that the petitioner shall make all the financial and other arrangements for operating the Kerosene/ldo dealership within six months. It is the contention of the petitioner that in response to the said letter of intent he purchased a land admeasuring 0. 058 hectares (580. 21) sq. mts at village Borda Teh. Huzur District bhopal vide registered sale deed dated 6. 7. 2002, obtained consent letters from state Bank of Indore, Bhopal and State Bank of India, Govindpura, Bhopal for grant of financial assistance and proceeded to seek no objection certificate for establishing a godown and dealership from the District Authorities, Dy. Director, industrial Health and Safety and from Janpad Panchayat Fanta. However, by letter dated 13. 8. 2002, Annexure P/17, the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of selection and cancellation of letter of Intent in respect of proposed dealership. This intimation was in pursuant to a policy decision of Government of india, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Communicated vide letter dated 9. 8. 2002; whereof all public sector oil companies were directed to cancel all the petrol Pumps/lpg Distributionships and Kerosene Dealerships made under recommendations of Dealer Selection Boards since 1. 1. 2000. This letter i. e. 9. 8. 2002 was however, axed by the Supreme Court in case of Omkar Lal Bajaj etc V. Union of India: AIR 2003 SC 2562. And a challenge put forth by the petitioner to letter dated 13. 8. 2002 in W. P. N. o. 4590/2002 resulted in its disposal on the same line as Omkarlal Bajaj (supra) vide order dated 8. 1. 2003. In pursuant thereof the respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 28. 1. 2003, Annexure P/33, revoked the communication dated 13. 8. 2002 and advised the petitioner to proceed further in time with LOI for the proposed dealership. This was however without prejudice to any other right that the corporation may have against the petitioner in any respect whatsoever. In sequel thereof respondent by letter dated 27. 3. 2003 (Annexure P-22) addressed to Collector, Bhopal was requested to issue whole sale Kerosene/licence to the petitioner.
(3.)ON 23. 5. 2003, Annexure P/1, the petitioner was informed about the cancellation of selection and that of letter of Intent dated 21. 6. 2001. This cancellation allegedly was based on the complaint received from second empanelled candidate Shri Rajeev Agrawal. The complaints were investigated by the Director general, Anti Adulteration Cell Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and natural Gas, who observed that the selection of the petitioner for the said dealership was not proper.