Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Petitioners have filed the present writ petition for setting aside the judgment dated 16.4.2010 (Annexure 14 to writ petition) as well as judgment dated 1.2.2010 (Annexure 11 to writ petition).

2. Facts arising out of present writ petition as stated are that petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Retail Outlet Dealer by the respondent-Corporation through dealership agreement dated 17.11.2006. Petitioners have not violated any terms of the aforesaid agreement. Petitioners were appointed as dealer by the Corporation of both Motor Speed (in short ‘MS’) and High Speed Diesel (in short ‘HSD’) on the basis of advertisement dated 23.12.2005 in daily newspaper ‘Amarujala’. They were appointed as retail outlet dealer. Under Clause II in Column ‘E’ it was provided that retail outlet was to be developed as a company lease and under this category construction of the petrol pump was to be done by petitioners and thereafter the land as well as the construction will be given by petitioners on lease to the Corporation. Under Clause III it was provided that in category ‘F’ a retail outlet will be developed in which petitioners will give the land on lease to Corporation