JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.S.G. and Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties and perused the material on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following main relief:

“i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2021 issued by opposite party No.4 for cancellation of location between Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48 at NH-128 Sultanpur Akbarpur Road (Annexure No.1). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure No.2). iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamous commanding the opposite parties to take steps including issuing letter of intent to petitioner for awarding of Retail Outlet Dealership on location in between Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48, NH-128, Sultanpur Akbarpur Road.”

3. Facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 24.11.2018 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (10C) for award of Regular Retail Outlet Dealership, the petitioner had applied for one of the locations, location No. 268 between Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48 at NH-128 Sultanpur-Akbarpur Road, District Ambedkar Nagar which district was erroneously published in the advertisement, correct being District Sultanpur. As the petitioner had not offered any land in terms of item No. 4 (v) of the Brochure on selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets (in short “the Brochure”), he was placed in Group 3 and one Mahima Gupta was selected to whom a letter of intent dated 12.01.2019 was issued, but as the Initial Security Deposit (ISD) and the documents for further selection process were not submitted her candidature was cancelled and her name was placed in Group 3. The petitioner was then given the opportunity to provide suitable piece of land at the advertised location/stretch vide letter dated 04.06.2019. To offer the land, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with one Ram Charitra for 20 years and informed the opposite parties through e-mail on 04.09.2019. However, the letter of intent was not issued and vide communication letter dated 13.01.2020 it was informed that the subject location No. 268 was cancelled against which the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6632 (MB) of 2020: Shishir Patel Vs. Union of India and others, but in the meantime, as the Indian Oil Corporation vide letter dated 04.03.2020, kept the letter dated 13.01.2020 in abeyance, the writ petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 05.03.2020 providing that no further direction was required, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the order, if any adverse action was taken against him. On 29.01.2021 the petitioner submitted a representation for decision being taken in the matter and also filed Writ Petition No. 5366 (MB) of 2021, but as the opposite party No.4-Deputy General Manager (RS) Allahabad Divisional Office, by order dated 18.05.2021 decided the representation giving the reasons for cancellation, the petitioner challenging the orders dated 13.01.2020 and 18.05.2021 filed the present petition.

4. Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation of the location after more than two and half years of the advertisement at this belated stage is illegal and arbitrary. The reason assigned for cancellation i.e. the error in publication of district Ambedkar Nagar, instead of correct district Sultanpur was a typographical error and was not material. He submitted that in pursuance of the letter of the Indian Oil Corporation dated 04.06. 2019 the petitioner having entered into a lease agreement, to offer land to the Indian Oil Corporation, acquired a legitimate expectation of getting the Retial Outlet dealership which could not, now, be denied.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the order dated 18.05.2021 is