ORDER :

Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri. D.B.Chaithanya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondent corporation contained in the letter of 2nd respondent in Ref. No.SDO/R/Chevella/737 dated 29.09.2021 in not issuing LOI to the petitioner and deciding to issue a fresh notification/advertisement for selection of dealers as regards the location “5KM from Chevella crossroads on NH163 towards Moinabad, LHS – Ranga Reddy District” and for consequential direction to the respondents to issue letter of intent in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the notification dated 14.12.2018.

3. 2nd respondent had issued a tender notification dated 14.12.2018 for selection of dealers for various locations in Telangana State including the subject location i.e. “5KM from Chevella cross road on SH4 towards Moinabad, Vikarabad District (Sl.No.737) under OBC category).” The petitioner herein had participated in the said notification by way of submitting bid. Since his bid was accepted in respect of the subject location, he was provisionally selected. The said fact was informed to the petitioner by 2nd respondent vide letter dated 06.07.2019. Land evaluation was completed by the respondent corporation on 14.09.2020. Verification of credentials of the petitioner was also completed on 01.10.2020. Despite completion of the aforesaid formalities, the respondents have not issued a letter of intent in favour of petitioner herein. Having waited for almost one year, he has submitted a representation dated 28.06.2021 to the respondents with a request to issue LOI in his favour. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation, respondents did not act upon the same.

4. Therefore, he had filed Writ Petition No.18044 of 2021 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the said representation dated 28.06.2021 and issue LOI in his favour. This Court, Vide order dated 04.08.2021, disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the respondents to consider the said representation and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. In compliance of the said order, 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 29.09.2021, informed the petitioner that it is in the process of cancelling the present location and a fresh notification/advertisement with correct location will be issued in due course. Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein had filed the present Writ Petition.

6. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is no wrong location advertised by the respondents and it is the only one location factually. Corporation cannot correct the location. Having completed land evaluation on 14.09.2020 and credential verification, the respondent cannot now say that they are in the process of cancelling the location on the ground that there was ambiguity in the notification with regard to location. The said action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and also without proper reasons and it is hit by Article 14 of Constitution of India and also doctrine of legitimate expectation. With the said contentions, learned Senior Counsel sought to set aside the said proceedings dated 29.09.2021 and sought a direction to respondents to issue LOI in favour of the petitioner.

7. Sri P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have issued the subject advertisement on 14.12.2018 notifying 1448 locations across the State of Telangana separated by district. In the said advertisement, the respondents have found that the locations sketch for retail outlet as well as the name of district in which the said location sketch shoul