JYOTI BABBAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed in order to challenge the order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (in short 'the Corporation') by which the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled.

(2.) In short, the Corporation offered retail outlet between Kilometer Stone 5-10 on SH 24 Hoshiarpur-Dasuya Road, District Hoshiarpur in the category OPEN(W). It was a dealership in which the retail outlet was to be established by the Corporation and was to be run by the dealer. As per Corpus Fund Scheme, the Corporation, muchless OMCs, were to arrange land for the purpose of establishment of retail outlet but keeping in view large number of LOIs, it was decided by the Corporation, by way of a policy, that the dealer would later provide the land in case the land is not available with the Corporation. In this case, the land was not available with the Corporation for the purpose of establishment of retail outlet at the prescribed place. Therefore, the petitioner consented to give the land for establishment of the retail outlet. The petitioner offered the land measuring 3 marla x 35 marla total measuring 1225 square meters at village Argowal on SH 24 (Hoshiarpur-Dasuya Road), District Hoshiarpur. On that premise LOI was issued. Thereafter there was a complaint made to the Corporation to the effect that the land offered by the petitioner is not at a place which was advertised for the purpose of establishment of the retail outlet. The matter was enquired into by the Vigilance Department of the Corporation and it was found that the land offered by the petitioner is at KM 32-33 on SH 24 Hoshiarpur Dasuya Road and not between KM Stone 5 to 10 on the same road. Thus, the impugned order was passed on 09.07.2012.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once all the enquiries were made by the Corporation before issuance of LOI and necessary licences were obtained, the respondents could not have cancelled the LOI only on this ground that the land in question does not situate at the advertised place.