1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to call entire record is pertaining to instant controversy;
(ii) Quash the impugned letter dated 4.12.2021 (P/3) issued by the Respondent No.2 and further be pleased to restore selection of the petitioner as was communicated by letter dated 8.3.2021 issued by the respondents;
(iii) To direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment;
(iv) To grant any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the litigation, in favour of petitioner."
2. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.
3. Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited invited proposal for allotment of various Regular & Rural Retail Outlets dealership by advertisement dated 14.12.2018, including location No.1787, "up to 10 km from Railway Crossing on Gotegaon - Chargawan Main Road, District Narsinghpur" under OBC category within Jabalpur Retail Region. Pursuant to advertisement, petitioner applied for dealership on 11.1.2019 along with all the required documents and necessary information, which was found suitable and site offered by petitioner was selected for Retail Outlets dealership and petitioner was informed by respondent through Email dated 8.3.2021 that based on draw of lots for selection of Retail Outlets dealership for above location, petitioner has been declared as selected.
4. He further submits that petitioner shocked to receive Email dated 4.12.2021 from respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited wherein it was intimated to petitioner that Land Evaluation Committee visited site offered on 26.11.2021 and found the same to be not meeting required norms as advertisement location was in a regular format and advertised stretch is on MDR Road and advertisement was wrongly issued for this location and needs to be cancelled. It is intimated to petitioner that his candidature was found ineligible due to cancellation of location. Challenging the said communication, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once selection letter was issued to petitioner and petitioner has invested substantial amount for development of site, respondents had no authority to cancel advertised location and impugned communication is arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and liable to be quashed. He prays for restoration of selection of petitioner and allotment of dealership. He relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Transferred Case No.100/2020 dated 7.11.2008, wherein orders issued for cancellation of various allotments of Retail Outlets of LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealerships, were under consideration and after considering the report of the committee appointed by Apex Court, cancellation orders of various dealers were upheld and some of the orders were quashed. However issue involved in that matter was selection and allotment of dealership, as a result of political connection/patronage and/or extraneous consideration. In the present matter, no such issue is involved and therefore, said judgment passed by Apex Court is not helpful to petitioner. In the present matter, later on, selection has been cancelled on the ground that mistake committed in selection of location in the advertisement itself and no such issue was involved in the matter decided by Apex Court.
5.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on the judgment of single Bench of Gauhati High Court 2005 (O) Supreme (Gau) 104 (Kunti Medhi vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and others), wherein it is held that selection of site issued in favour of the deceased-husband of petitioner could be transferred in the name of petitioner as original LOI was to be issued after field verification and before issuance of LOI the husband of petitioner died. Thereafter, petitioner submitted representation which was turn down by HPCL on the ground that after the death of petitioner's husband, petitioner is not entitled for dealership on the basis of selection of site offered by her late husband.
5.2. Here in the present matter, the point in issue is different. In the present mater, advertisement was cancelled on account of mistake committed by HPCL in inviting the offers treating the site as regular retail outlet site, whereas later on it was found that site falls under the Rural Area and therefore, the advertisement was cancelled qua subjected site. Hence, the judgment of Gauhati High Court is also not helpful to the petitioner.
6. Shri Naveen Salunke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that though advertisement was issued for allotment of Retail Outlets dealership on 14.12.2018 including location No.1787 under OBC category in Jabalpur Retail Region, later on, it was revealed that side falls under rural area Measure District Road (MDR) whereas, the advertisement was issued treating the location as Regular Retail Outlets. Considering the same, it appeared that mistake was committed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in including location No.1787 as Regular Retail Outlets despite the same is situated at MDR, which falls under the category of Rural Retail Outlets. Therefore, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has rightly cancelled the selection of petitioner. He further submits that in advertisement itself, it was specifically mentioned that the corporation reserves the right to cancel/withdraw the advertisement or extend the due date for its LOI distribution without assigning any reasons. He further submits that only selection letter was issued, which may treated as LOI but no contract was executed between petitioner and respondents, and therefore, petitioner cannot compel the respondents to execute the contract. He relied on the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches in the following matters:- W.P. No.4020/2021 (Abhishek Jain vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.) decided on 13.8.2021, W.P. No.23392/2019 (Rajesh Gupta vs. Union of India and anr.) decided on 15.9.2022, W.P. No.3280/2022 (Pankaj Soni vs. The India Oil Corporation Ltd. and others) decided on 31.3.2023, W.P. No.2813/2020 (Sunil Singh Gour vs. Union of India and anr.) decided on 5.1.2023.
7. It is submitted that in all the above cases, in similar circumstances, it is held by the Co-ordinate Benches that if there is any mistake in description/selection of location, selection of dealer may be canceled instead of perpetrating the mistake and the action of Petroleum Company to cancel the advertisement was found correct. The Petroleum Corporation cannot be compelled to continue with the process when the mistake was already brought to the knowledge of advertisement issuing authority. He prays for dismissal of the petition.
8. Heard counsel for the parties, considered the submission of learned counsels and perused the record.
9. It appears that advertisement was issued by Hindustan Petroleum Company Ltd. for inviting the offers for selection of dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets. Petitioner has filled relevant brochure as Annexure-P-4, which contained guidelines of selection of dealers for Regular & Rural Retail Outlets through draw of bidding process. Clause (1) of guidelines provide for identification of location and reads as under:-
"1. IDENTIFICATION OF LOCATIONS
Location for setting up Retail Outlets are identified by the respective oil company based on commercial/minimum volume considerations. Accordingly, Regular and Rural outlets are set upon by Oil Marketing Companies (OMC) as under:-
(i) Regular ROs: Locations on Highways (National Highways/State Highways etc.) & Urban/Semi-urban areas/within Municipal Limits of a town).
(ii) Rural ROs: Locations in rural areas but not on Highways (NH/SH etc.) and outside Municipal Limits of a town."
10. As per Clause-I of the guidelines, it is apparent that if location is situated in Highway (NH/SH etc.) and/or Urban/Semi-urban areas/within Municipal Limits of a town, the site would be treated as Regular Retail Outlets, whereas if location is situated in Rural Area, but not on Highway (NH/SH etc.) and outside Municipal Limits of a town, shall be treated as Rural Retail Outlets. It is not in dispute that in the advertisement in question, offers were invited for location No.1787 "up to 10 km from Railway Crossing on Gotegaon - Chargawan Main Road, District Narsinghpur", considering it as Regular Retail Outlet and later on selection letter was also issued considering the site as Regular Retail Outlet but when a complaint was received and Land Evaluation Committee visited site, it was observed that the site is situated on MDR, which comes under rural area, therefore, the mistake was apparent and corporation has cancelled the selection as well as the advertisement quo location No.1787. It was clearly mentioned in advertisement itself that the same may be cancelled at the option of Corporation. Issuance of selection letter of petitioner does not amount to a contract and therefore, there was no concluded contract between the parties. At the most, it may be treated as an intention of the corporation to appoint petitioner as dealer. No detail contract was executed between the parties.
11. The contention of learned counsel for petitioner that as the petitioner has invested substantial amount, therefore, respondent has no right to cancel the advertisement, is not acceptable as even investing substantial amount or deposit of security amount would not create any indefeasible right to the petitioner and mere issuance of selection of petitioner would not create any right to successful aspirant.
12. In view of above, this Court does not find any substance in the argument of petitioner and the impugned communication dated 4.12.2021 cannot be quashed and no direction can be issued to restore the selection of petitioner. However, it appears that mistake was committed by respondent and respondent is solely responsible for the mistake, before issuance of advertisement respondent ought to have verify the location. It appears when the location was selected by respondent and offers were invited to establish Retail Outlets at the same location no prior survey was conducted. Petitioner offered the site situated at the same location and invested substantial amount. Due to cancellation of advertisement and selection of petitioner, petitioner suffers substantial loss. Petitioner has claimed compensation also in the present petition.
Hence, the petition is disposed off with following directions:-
"(i) Petitioner is entitled for refund of security deposit etc. along with interest @ 9% per annum thereupon from the date of payment, till refund of the amount.
(ii) Petitioner is also entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the respondent as the petitioner has suffered financial losses due to negligent act of respondent in issuance of advertisement without any prior survey."
13. With the aforesaid, present petition is disposed off to the extent as indicated herein-above. No order as to costs.
