ORDER

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- (i) That the Hon'ble High Court be pleased to call entire record is pertaining to instant controversy;

(ii) Quash the impugned letter dated 4.12.2021 (P/3) issued by the Respondent No.2 and further be pleased to restore selection of the petitioner as was communicated by letter dated 8.3.2021 issued by the respondents;

(iii) To direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment;

(iv) To grant any other relief, which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including cost of the litigation, in favour of petitioner.

2. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

3. Shri Navneet Dubey, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited invited proposal for allotment of various Regular & Rural Retail Outlets dealership by advertisement dated 14.12.2018, including location No.1787, "up to 10 km from Railway Crossing on Gotegaon - Chargawan Main Road, District Narsinghpur" under OBC category within Jabalpur Retail Region. Pursuant to advertisement, petitioner applied for dealership on 11.1.2019 along with all the required documents and necessary information, which was found suitable and site offered by petitioner was selected for Retail Outlets dealership and petitioner was informed by respondent through Email dated 8.3.2021 that based on draw of lots for selection of Retail Outlets dealership for above location, petitioner has been declared as selected.

4. He further submits that petitioner shocked to receive Email dated 4.12.2021 from respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited wherein it was intimated to petitioner that Land Evaluation Committee visited site offered on 26.11.2021 and found the same to be not meeting required norms as advertisement location was in a regular format and advertised stretch is on MDR Road and advertisement was wrongly issued for this location and needs to be cancelled. It is intimated to petitioner that his candidature was found ineligible due to cancellation of location. Challenging the said communication, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once selection letter was issued to petitioner and petitioner has invested substantial amount for development of site, respondents had no authority to cancel advertised location and impugned communication is arbitrary, illegal, erroneous and liable to be quashed. He prays for restoration of selection of petitioner and allotment of dealership. He relied on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Transferred Case No.100/2020 dated 7.11.2008, wherein orders issued for cancellation of various allotments of Retail Outlets of LPG distributorship and SKO-LDO dealerships, were under consideration and after considering the report of the committee appointed by Apex Court, cancellation orders of various dealers were upheld and some of the orders were quashed. However issue involved in that matter was selection and allotment of dealership, as a result of political connection/patronage and/or extraneous consideration. In the present matter, no such issue is involved and therefore, said judgment passed by Apex Court is not helpful to petitioner. In the present matter, later on, selection has been cancelled on the ground that mistake committed in selection of location in the advertisement itself and no such issue was involved in the matter decided by Apex Court.

5.1 Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on the judgment of single Bench of Gauhati High Court 2005 (O) Supreme (Gau) 104 (Kunti Medhi vs Hindustan Petrolleum Corporation Ltd. and others), wherein it is held that selection of site issued in favour of the deceased-husband of petitioner could be transferred in the name of petitioner as original LOI was to be issued after field verificatio