1 2025:CGHC:20548 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1564 of 2025 1 - Sandeep Rathore S/o Bhagwat Rathore Aged About 28 Years Old, R/o 62, Ward No. 02, Khokhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited A Government Of India, Enterprises, Through Its General Manager, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra. 2 - Head Of Regional Office Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Retail Regional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Regional Manager (Retail) Hindustran Petroleum Corporation Limited Retail Regional Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs :- “10.1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions and the impugned letter dated 21.02.2025 issued by Chief Regional Manager Retail Bilaspur, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. may kindly be set aside being illegal and arbitrary, in the interest of justice. 10.2] That, this Hon'ble Court may direct the Respondent authorities to reinstate the LOI and proceed with the dealership allotment in accordance with the LOI and originally advertised criteria. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 10.3] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the letter dated 21.02.2025 issued by the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (HPCL), whereby the Letter of Intent (LOI) earlier granted in favour of the petitioner for the establishment of a retail outlet dealership was withdrawn. HPCL had issued an advertisement on 28.06.2023 for appointment of retail outlet dealerships in Janjgir-Champa District, Chhattisgarh, including Location No. 44, which required the site to be within 1 km from Jail Chowk, Khokhra. The petitioner, meeting all eligibility criteria, applied for the said location and was shortlisted, being one of only two applicants. In support of the application, the petitioner submitted certificates from the Sarpanch, Patwari, and Revenue Inspector certifying that the proposed land (Khasra No. 823/1) lay within the specified distance from Jail Chowk. However, an unsuccessful applicant, Ramkishan Kashyap, challenged the grant of LOI by filing WPC No. 4418/2024, which was disposed of by the High Court on 03.04.2024, granting liberty to the said applicant to seek remedy under Clause 18 of HPCL’s guidelines. Thereafter, the petitioner, by letter dated 13.09.2024, requested HPCL to proceed with the retail outlet process. After a lapse of five months, the Chief Regional Manager, HPCL, Bilaspur, without affording the petitioner any opportunity of hearing, issued the impugned letter dated 21.02.2025, withdrawing the LOI on the ground that complaints were received claiming the land of petitioner did not meet the required distance criteria. The respondent relied on subsequent clarifications from the Revenue Inspector and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), indicating the distance of the site from Jail Chowk to be 1.116 kilometers and 1120 meters, respectively. Citing 3 Clause 19(C) of the LOI and Clause 16 of the Dealer Selection Brochure, HPCL withdrew the LOI. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in withdrawing the Letter of Intent (LOI) is illegal, arbitrary, and in stark violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned withdrawal dated 21.02.2025 is vitiated by a blatant disregard for audi alteram partem, as the petitioner was never afforded an opportunity to respond or contest the belated clarifications obtained from the Revenue Inspector and NHAI. This ex parte reliance on contested distance measurements, without allowing the petitioner to submit counter-evidence, deprives the petitioner of procedural fairness and renders the decision unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The withdrawal was predicated on post-facto complaints and inconsistent measurements, despite the petitioner having submitted valid certifications from the Sarpanch, Patwari, and Revenue Inspector confirming that the proposed site lies within the prescribed one-kilometer radius. The unexplained departure from earlier certifications and the unilateral invocation of Clauses 19C of the LOI and 16 of the Dealer Selection Brochure point to an arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power. Moreover, the petitioner had already complied with all eligibility and procedural requirements, including participation in the draw of lots, site verification, and payment of the security deposit, thereby creating a vested legitimate expectation that the dealership would be awarded. The abrupt cancellation, after a significant lapse of time and without any show-cause notice, violates the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. The reliance of respondents’ on questionable measurements, refusal to conduct a joint verification, and failure to provide a fair hearing, compounded by third-party influence and procedural irregularities, warrant judicial interference. The petitioner, having suffered financial and reputational loss, humbly prays for quashing of the cancellation and restoration of the LOI in the interest of justice. 4 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, a Government of India enterprise incorporated under the Companies Act and operating under the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, submits that the action taken in withdrawing the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued to the petitioner is legal, justified, and in accordance with the applicable guidelines. The petitioner, having participated in the dealer selection process and obtained a provisional LOI, was always subject to the conditions stipulated in the Brochure and the LOI itself. Pursuant to a writ petition filed by one Ramkishan Kashyap—whose grievance was directed to be resolved under Clause 18 of the Dealer Selection Guidelines—the respondent initiated an investigation. Based on official communications from the Revenue Inspector and the Executive Engineer, PWD National Highway Division, it was conclusively found that the proposed of petitioner's site lies beyond the prescribed 1-kilometer distance from Jail Chowk, measuring 1116 and 1120 meters respectively. These findings clearly contradicted the earlier certificate furnished by the petitioner and warranted cancellation under Clause 19(c) of the LOI and Clause 16 of the Guidelines. It is emphasized that the LOI is merely a conditional expression of intent, and does not confer any vested or enforceable right until full compliance and verification are completed. The failure of petitioner to implead Mr. Kashyap, who has now been provisionally selected, also renders the petition defective for non-joinder of necessary parties. Furthermore, the petitioner has not produced any credible evidence before this Hon’ble Court to counter the findings of the authorities. All actions were taken after due investigation and procedural compliance, without arbitrariness or malafide, and hence, no violation of Articles 14 or 21 is made out. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merit. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing and Urban Development Authority and Another, reported in (2024) SCC 5 Online SC 480. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with the petition. 6. Upon hearing learned counsel for both parties and perusal of the materials placed on record, it is evident that the withdrawal of the LOI was effected without affording the petitioner a meaningful opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is a cornerstone of natural justice and applies with equal force to administrative decisions affecting civil rights or interests, including withdrawal of provisional appointments. 7. In the present case, the unilateral reliance on ex parte measurements— especially in the face of earlier official certifications—without notifying or consulting the petitioner, vitiates the entire process. Even if the LOI is provisional, it cannot be withdrawn in such an arbitrary manner, particularly where the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the process would be completed fairly and transparently. 8. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 21.02.2025 issued by respondent No. 2, whereby the LOI granted to the petitioner was withdrawn, is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-authorities are directed to afford the petitioner due opportunity of hearing, including the right to present counter- material and seek joint verification, if required. 9. Upon providing such opportunity, the respondents shall pass a reasoned order afresh, strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by any prior observations or findings. The entire process shall be concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Shayna JUDGE