JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against a judgment dated March 13, 2025 passed in WPA No. 2924 of 2025, dismissing the said writ petition.

2. The backdrop of the case is as follows:

3. On November 5, 2020, a Letter of Intent was issued by the respondent no.1/corporation in favour of and writ petitioners/appellants, granting license to the latter to run a retail petrol pump/dealership outlet. Pursuant thereto, on November 30, 2025, a formal Letter of Appointment (LOA) was issued in favour of the appellants for MS/HSD retail outlet dealership at a location within 5 Km from Kalachara Post Office towards Arambagh on State Highway 15, in the District of Hooghly, West Bengal under the 'Open Category'. On the same day, a dealership agreement was also entered into between the parties in that regard.

4. On January 31, 2025, an LOA was issued in favour of the respondent no.6 in respect of another plot of land located on the same State Highway, between Chanditala-II BDO Office and Bank of India, Duttapur Branch, on both sides of the State Highway. Consequentially, a dealership agreement was also entered into between the respondent/HPCL (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited) and respondent no.6.

5. The appellants challenge such grant dealership to the respondent no.6 primarily on the ground of legitimate expectation and violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that Clause 7 of the dealership agreement of the appellants, which permits the respondent no.1/HPCL to appoint any dealer at any place as they deem fit, is unconscionable and arbitrary, since it provides unfettered rights to one of the parties to the contract while saddling the other (appellants) with numerous terms negating them from conducting any other business.

7. Secondly, the appellants contend that through the execution of the dealership agreement in favour of the appellants, HPCL has created an expectation of benefit arising expressly from their administrative decision to enter into such dealership. Thus, the appellants have a reasonable cause to have legitimate expectation, based on established practice, to benefit from the retail dealership, as recognized by the legal relationship between the parties. It is contended that the grant of license to respondent no.6 violates such legitimate expectation.

8. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellants cites Rajeev Suri v. Delhi Developmnt Authority & Ors., reported at (2022) 11 SCC 1.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that although the respondent no.1/HPCL seeks to argue that the award of fresh license was a policy decision, no specific policy has been placed before this Court, whereas it was well established that any public policy promulgated has to be reasonable and non-arbitrary. It is contended that the distribution of State largesse, including but not limited to licenses and dealerships, stands on a different footing than that of a private individual as they require a higher degree of fairness in action. Such distribution, it is submitted, cannot be prompted by arbitrary or irrational policies.

10. In support of the above proposition, learned counsel cites Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited & Anr. v. Balbir Kumar Walia & Anr. reported at (2021) 8 SCC 461 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mala Banerjee reported at (2025) 7 SCC 698.

11. It is next contended alternatively by the appellants that even if the respondent no.1/HPCL had the power to grant fresh license, the same is not an unfettered right and has to be exercised reasonably, without being tainted by any arbitrariness, capriciousness or whims.

12. In the present case, the grant of license to respondent no.6, it is argued, is arbitrary in nature. In such context, learned counsel cites B.P. Singhal v. Union of India and Anr. reported at (2010) 6 SCC 331 and ABL International Ltd and Anr. v. Export credit Gu