(1.) The above-noted three appeals arising out of the judgment and decree dated 27.12.1996 of the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamsala are being disposed of together by this single judgment.
(2.) Regular Second Appeals No. 13 and 14 of 1997 have been preferred by Defendant No. 4 against the dismissal of her appeal and allowing the cross appeal of the Respondents-Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 vide the impugned judgment. Regular Second Appeal No. 103 of 1997 has been preferred by Defendant No. 3 against the allowing of the appeal of the Plaintiffs vide the impugned judgment and decree by the learned District Judge.
(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case giving rise to the present appeals may be stated thus. Defendant No. 3, who is a Government of India undertaking and is controlled by Defendant No. 1 intended to open a retail outlet for the distribution of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (L.P.G) in Kangra town and for the purpose to appoint distributor. Applications in this regard were invited through a notice published in the "The Tribune" in its issue dated 14.8.1985. Such applications were invited from unemployed graduates, who were residents of Kangra District, not having a family income of more than Rs. 24,000/- per annum, and who are not having any close relative (as defined in the application form) as a dealer or distributor of any Oil Company and who was not a partner of any dealership/distributorship/agency of any Petroleum Corporation/Co.In pursuance of such notice a number of applications were received including from the Plaintiffs, Defendant No. 4 and Defendant No. 5. After scrutiny of such applications, the applicants including the Plaintiffs, Defendants No. 4 and 5, whose applications were found in order were called for interview at Kullu on 12.9.1987 by Defendant No. 2. Consequent upon such interviews, the Defendant No. 2 recommended the names of Defendant No. 4, Defendant No. 5 and the two Plaintiffs to Defendant No. 3 for being allotted distributorship/ dealership of LPG land finally a "letter of intent" dated 3.3.1988 was issued by Defendant No. 3 in favour of Defendant No. 4.