Muneer V.K v. Union of India and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 10TH MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** **MUNEER V.K AGED 34 YEARS S/O HASSAN, VALIYA KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, CHANGAROTH, KOYILANDI TALUK, PERUVANNAMUZHY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673328** **BY ADVS. MOHAMMED SIYAD M.F. C.B.SUMA DEVI SUNANDA SUKUMARAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT A WING, SHASTRI RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001** - **2 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL), KOZHIKODE TERRITORY OFFICE, M/S. NARAYANAN & CO (BPCL PETROL PUMP), YMCA CROSS ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001** **BY ADVS. MANU S. DSG OF INDIA S.SUJIN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner asserts that he participated in a Dealership Selection process conducted by the 2[nd] respondent – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL); and was issued with Ext.P3 – 'Letter of Intent', followed by Ext.P4 letter and that he has obtained necessary concurrences and clearances from the other statutory Authorities. He alleges that, however, in spite of this, no action has been taken by the 'BPCL' to grant him a 'Letter of Appointment', and that this is crucial because, it is only after he receives such a letter, can he continue with a construction of the Retail Outlet, and apply for other requisite licences and permissions. He, therefore, prays that the 2[nd] respondent be directed to issue to him a 'Letter of Appointment of Dealership', for conduct of Retail Dealership Outlet, pursuant to Ext.P3 'Letter of Intent', within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.Mohammed Siyad – learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.S.Sujin – learned Standing Counsel for the 'BPCL', submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed by his client, **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **3** detailing the reasons why the petitioner cannot be granted the 'Letter of Appointment of Dealership'. He argued that a mere issuance of a 'Letter of Intent' to the petitioner is not a guarantee, or even a promise, that he will be given the dealership; and that his application will be considered and processed only in terms of all necessary requirements and unexpendable terms of the tender notification, juxtaposed by details and inputs furnished by him. He submitted that, going by the same, the land offered by him is at the “Nadapuram Village”, but not in “Thuneri”, which is the specified location; and therefore, that for this primary reason, his application cannot be considered, nor can be now given a 'Letter of Appointment of Dealership'. He, therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 3. I have examined the afore rival submissions on the touchstone of the pleadings on record and the materials produced by the parties. 4. At the outset, it will be necessary to read the averments in the counter affidavit by the 2[nd] respondent, for which purpose, paragraphs 3 to 6 thereon are extracted _ut infra_ : **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **4** “3. The petitioner had submitted his application pursuant to the advertisement offering a piece of land in Nadapuram Village, Thuneri Block, Kozhikode District. It is evident from the advertisement that the location intended for setting up the retail outlet was Thuneri in rural class of market and not for Nadapuram Village. 4. In the application submitted by the petitioner what was offered was land in Nadapuram Village, Thuneri Block, Kozhikode District. This is admitted by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition and is also brought out from Ext P2 location certificate which shows that the land offered is in Nadapuram Village, Thuneri Block. In the Letter of Intent Ext P3 also it is clear that the proposed retail outlet dealership location is Thuneri in Kozhikode. A mere issuance of the Letter of Intent cannot be considered as a firm offer of dealership and this is clearly stated in Clause 22 of Ext P3 Letter of Intent. 5. It has come out on verification that the location offered by the petitioner is not that which was advertised namely Thuneri but Nadapuram Village. The necessity of the location advertised will not be satisfied by merely offering land in any Village coming under Thuneri Block Panchayath which is what the petitioner has now done by offering land in Nadapuram Village. A mere mention of the name Thuneri in the description of the land offered will not do justice to the location required as per the advertisement. There are about 10 Villages in Thuneri Block being i. Chekkiade ii. Edacheri iii. Nadakkuthazha **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **5** iv. Nadapuram v. Purameri vi. Thuneri vii. Valayam viii. Vanimel ix. Vadakara X. Vilagadu 6. Therefore there is considerable difference between the location advertised and the location offered by the petitioner. The petitioner is also aware that if any information/declaration provided by the petitioner is found untrue or incorrect or false the respondent Corporation would within its right to withdraw the Letter of Intent and the petitioner/applicant would have no claim, whatsoever against the Corporation. This information is already provided to the petitioner as per Clause No.16 of appendix XA of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner dated 25/05/2020. The further issuance of Ext P4 NOC by the District Collector and Ext P5 NOC of the Regional Fire Officer or Ext P6 NOC issued by the Additional District Magistrate Kozhikode under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules 2002 does not confer any vested right on the petitioner for appointment as dealership when the very location offered by the petitioner is not as per the advertisement issue.” 5. Normally, the petitioner would obtain no right to set up the dealership, unless he had been given a 'Letter of **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **6** Appointment of Dealership' because, as rightly argued by his learned counsel, the same alone would have then enabled him to continue with the construction of the Retail Outlet and apply for other requisite licenses and permissions. As matters now stand, he has only been favoured with a 'Letter of Intent' and not the 'Letter of Appointment of Dealership'; and obviously, therefore, he does not obtain any vested right to claim that he should be selected as a dealer. 6. That apart, it also well recognized, as is also admittedly a part of the tender notification, that the 'BPCL' is at liberty to cancel the notification at any point of time, without assigning a reason, provided there are verifiable and tangible cause for doing so. 7. In the case at hand, the explanation given by the BPCL in the afore averments in their counter affidavit appear to be, prima facie, good cause for them to discontinue further processes on the basis of the petitioner's application, particularly because, they say that the land which offered by him does not come within the area which is stipulated, namely Thuneri, and the factum of being part of the Nadapuram Village, would not suffice. **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **7** In the afore circumstances, I am certain that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, though he would be at full liberty to approach the 'BPCL' in future, based on any notification with respect to an outlet either at Thuneri or such other area, as may be eligible to him; notwithstanding this judgment or the observations herein. **Sd/-DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE** lsn **WP(C) NO. 29407 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29407/2022** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** - **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF APPLICATION NO. 15455594654781 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE/PLAN NO. 37/20 OF NADAPURAM VILLAGE, THUNERI BLOCK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT** - **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 21.03.2020 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 21.08.2020** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY REGIONAL FIRE OFFICER, KOZHIKODE DATED 01.12.2020** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE DATED 25.05.2022** - **Exhibit P7 True copy of the power of attorney dated 16.02.2021 issued by the petitioner to me** - **Exhibit P8 True copy of Certificate No. BPTNR/406/2023-D dated 04.08.2023 issued by Block Development Officer, Thuneri** ## **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS** - **EXHIBIT R2(a)** **True copy of the relevant extract showing serial No.131 which is the location involved in this writ petition** ## **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** **LSN**