The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent Corporation was bound by promissory estoppel to offer dealership rights to the landowner or his nominee when converting the outlet into a dealership, as per the policy circulars and communications.

1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other writ or direction or order in the nature of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus against the respondent, namely Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The writ petitioner has prayed that the records of the respondent in CBDO/R/Palayampudur dated 19.01.2007 be called for and quashed and has also prayed for a further direction to the respondent to offer the dealership in respect of the IOCL retail outlet at Palayampudur. The writ petition has been filed in the name of Sri Ram Trailer Services (Unit II), a partnership firm represented by its partner C.Shanmugam.

2. The following are the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition:-

i) At the end of 2002, the officials of the respondent in the Coimbatore Region met the deponent C.Shanmugam and explained that they were contemplating appointing dealers for the retail outlets of their product and that such appointment would depend upon his leasing out the land required for putting up the retail outlet to the respondent on a long term basis on low rentals. Pursuant to the same, the deponent acquired lands at Palayampudur village with the sole object of leasing it out to the respondent on concessional terms on the specific undertaking given by the respondent that the dealership of the outlet would be given to him or to the firm in which he was a partner and that he could amortise the cost of acquisition of the land by a long term dealership. On the strength of the understanding and solemn promise made by the respondent, C.Shanmugam (deponent) leased out his land for a very low rental only with such an expectation.

ii) Induced by the said promise, the deponent took on lease 1.05 acres besides acquiring 25 cents of land adjoining the said lease-hold land and expressed his readiness and willingness to lease out the said land to the respondent. Consequently, a lease deed drafted by the respondent was given to him for his signature on the dotted lines. Thus the lease deed came to be executed on 26.03.2003 and the same was registered as document No.560/2003 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Dharmapuri, where under a total extent of 1.30 acres of land was leased out to the respondent for a period of 30 years at a monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- for the first block of three years and Rs.8,600/- for the second block of three years. Thus by gradual increase, in the tenth block of three years the rental would be Rs.26,400/- per month. Subsequently, he purchased 10 cents out of the land held by him on lease from his Lessor, in order to avoid loss on account of rentals. He was informed by the respondent that the lands taken on lease by the respondent a retail outlet will be developed and either himself or any firm in which he would hold a share or any member of his family would be given the retail outlet established on the said land. The petitioner was paid an advance of Rs.1,80,000/- before deducting TDS and the respondent was also given the right to sub lease and appoint dealers, agents and licensees.

iii) After the land was taken on lease by the respondent, they agreed to appoint the wife of the deponent, namely S.Gangabhavani, allowed her to operate the said retail outlet on Job Contract basis with effect from 31.03.2003 quoting the appointment as a licence to operate the retail outlet on job contract basis, as the outlet was named "Company Owned and Company Operated outlet" (in short COCO outlet). When C.Shanmugam questioned the same and pointed out that the same was not in tune with the original promise made by them, the officials of the respondent assured that the deponent would not be in any way deprived of the rights agreed to be given by them and that the solemn assurances and promises made by them would be honoured. In this regard,