[2025:RJ-JP:13506] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1220/2009 Mahima Sharma wife of Shri Suresh Sharma aged 45 years, resident of Hotel Sagar, Bhopal Club, Opp. to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its territory Manager (Retail), Madri Industrial Area, Udai Sagar Road, Near Rana Pratap Nagar Railway Station, Udaipur 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Senior Sales Office, Village Daurai, District Ajmer. 3. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1-Parliament Street, New Delhi. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8373/2009 Mahima Sharma wife of Shri Suresh Sharma aged 45 years, resident of Hotel Sagar, Bhopal Club, Opp. to Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its territory Manager (Retail), Madri Industrial Area, Udai Sagar Road, Near Rana Pratap Nagar Railway Station, Udaipur 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Senior Sales Office, Village Daurai, District Ajmer. 3. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Transport Bhawan, 1-Parliament Street, New Delhi. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta Mr. Vishal Karnani for Mr. Vikas Soni [2025:RJ-JP:13506] (2 of 3) [CW-1220/2009] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 25/03/2025 1. The issue involved in both the writ petitions pertains to establishment of retail outlet by the petitioner, pursuant to the LOI dated 28.10.2004 issued to the petitioner, which has later on withdrawn by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) vide order dated 10.04.2009. 2. It appears that LOI dated 28.10.2004 was issued in favour of petitioner with certain conditions and one of them was to propose the land for establishment of retail outlet, but since the land offered by petitioner was not found suitable, moreover, the no objection by NHAI was not extended, hence, in that eventuality, the LOI has been cancelled by the BPCL. 3. The issuance of LOI is merely an offer to petitioner which cannot be misconstrued as allotment of retail outlet, more particularly, when same is subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. BPCL has cancelled the LOI, on account of not finding the offered land by the petitioner, suitable for establishment of retail outlet, which is well within parameters of the guidelines and the conditions stipulated in the LOI. 4. Petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case for quashing the cancellation of LOI by the BPCL, hence, no relief in favour of petitioner can be passed, more so when much time is lapsed after cancellation of LOI. [2025:RJ-JP:13506] (3 of 3) [CW-1220/2009] 5. In that view of the matter, the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted and accordingly, the writ petitions do not survive and same are hereby dismissed. 6. Stay applications and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /235-236