RINA MADHUKAR WIFE OF SHEKHAR KUMAR MADHUKAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SENIOR MANAGER (R.S.), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was one of the applicants for appointment of a retail outlet pursuant to an advertisement made in the newspaper 'Hindustan' on 22.2.2004. Petitioner came to be selected and even a letter of intent was issued in her favour but subsequently respondent Indian Oil Corporation decided to cancel/withdraw the letter of intent issued in favour of the petitioner, which is dated 9.4.2007. The withdrawal of the letter of intent is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ application. The said order has been brought on record in I.A. No. 4819 of 2007.

(2.) There is a small history behind the present litigation. There is already a dealership operating in the name of Chanda Automobiles Service Station located at Muzaffarpur in which petitioner was one of the partners. The dealership came into existence in the year 1997. A memorandum of agreement was entered into between respondent Corporation, the present petitioner and two other partners. The agreement has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. There is no dispute to this aspect of the matter.

(3.) Subsequently the present petitioner in her wisdom decided to walkout of the dealership including the partnership and a reconstitution was carried out. After the reconstitution, information had been given to all concerned including the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation. That was in the year 2002. It is the stand of the petitioner that she severed all ties with the erstwhile company and the partnership. She continued in that status till she decided to apply in response to the advertisement issued by the Corporation in the year 2004. She was selected and a letter of intent came to be issued in her favour. The petitioner was shocked and horrified to receive yet another communication stating that the same stands cancelled or withdrawn with certain reasons having been assigned therein. One of the reasons in the said communication is that the petitioner had committed breach of Clause 47(iii) by going for unilateral reconstitution of the firm. The so-called agreement dated 12.10.2002 executed amongst the partners of M/s Chanda Automobiles Service Station is not valid because the reconstitu-. tion was done without any written consent from the Corporation and there was misinformation in this regard. Petitioner cannot be permitted to own more than one outlet of the Corporation.