IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.24949 of 2011 BETWEEN Vanam Srilatha. ... PETITIONER AND M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Guntur District and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BUSSA RAJENDRA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.THOOM SRINIVAS The Court made the following order: ORDER: Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has filed vacate petition, which is now listed and as both the learned counsel have made submissions in the writ petition itself, the same is being disposed of. 2. Petitioner, who is an aspirant for a retail outlet dealership of the first respondent corporation at Nalgonda town, has responded to the notification of the first respondent dated 21.07.2007 and was selected and empanelled as at Sl.No.1. She was given a letter of intent dated 18.01.2008. 3. Petitioner claims that she has deposited Rs.3,00,000/- towards security deposit as per the condition of the said letter but thereafter on account of various personal difficulties she could not fullfil the other conditions of providing the land in terms of letter of intent. Petitioner has filed a request dated 14.02.2008 requesting grace time for completing the requirement of providing land. Petitioner states that she has renewed her request again on 17.09.2010 by further representation addressed to the Senior Regional Manager assuring him that all personal problems of the petitioner are solved and she is ready for starting retail outlet without any delay. However, the respondent corporation cancelled the letter of intent issued to the petitioner by proceedings dated 20.10.2009 and have issued fresh notification dated 09.06.2010. At that stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 04.10.2010 challenging the action of the second respondent in withdrawing the letter of intent as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for consequential relief. 4. While issuing notice before admission, this Court by order dated 05.10.2010 directed that further arrangement by way of appointment of dealer may not be made for Nalgonda town for three weeks and the same was extended by further orders. 5. The respondents rely upon their letter of intent and particularly, condition (a) thereof, which reads as follows: a. That you will lese the suitable plot of land to HPCL for a period of 15 years with one renewal option for another 15 years. In case the offered land is taken on lease by you, the head lease should contain a clause that you should have a right to sub-lease the said plot of land to HPCL, without further reference to the Head Lessor for the lease period as stipulated above, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between you and HPCL. In case you fail to make available the offered land within two months, this offer is liable to be withdrawn. However, there is no commitment from HPCL for taking the said land from you. 6. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has not responded to the said letter of intent by offering the land within the time prescribed. However, she filed a request dated 14.02.2008 accepting the conditions of letter of intent and requested that she be granted grace time to fulfill the said conditions. In response thereto, the respondents once again gave her opportunity by giving 15 days time informing her that no further extension will be considered. However, on finding that the petitioner has not responded, another letter dated 07.07.2009 was issued to the petitioner cautioning her that even after lapse of several months since she has not confirmed the land status nor contacted the respondent corporation and she was called upon to furnish land documents on 31.07.2009 failing which the Corporation will have to withdraw the letter of intent. Even after the aforesaid letter, the petitioner had not responded and thereby the respondent corporation has issued proceedings dated 20.10.2009 withdrawing the letter of intent as well as by refunding the security deposit. After the said order was passed, the petitioner states that she filed a representation dated 17.09.2010 (after about 2 years and 7 months of her request for grace time dated 14.02.2008). As stated above, thereafter the present writ petition is filed on 04.10.2010. 7. The chronology of events makes it clear that the petitioner has not been diligent in complying with the letter of intent, particularly, condition (a) extracted above. Even though the two months period stipulated in the said condition was not insisted upon by the respondents and they waited for sufficiently long time, the petitioner has not fulfilled her obligation. As per her letter on 14.02.2008, she was herself aware of the default and sought for grace time and even after that she has not responded and for the first time, she has made a request for consideration of letter of intent only on 17.09.2010. The manner in which the petitioner has leisurely acted in response to the offer of the respondents clearly shows that the actions of the respondents are reasonable and by no stretch of imagination can be said to be arbitrary. The withdrawal of letter of intent by the respondents under their proceedings dated 20.10.2009 is, therefore, clearly justified in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner surprisingly has not specifically questioned the said withdrawal letter but she insists on enforcement of letter of intent. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has mentioned that subsequent notification dated 09.06.2010 was issued wherein petitioner along with other aspirants have participated in the interview dated 27.01.2011 but the petitioner was not selected. 9. In view of the above also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is clearly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the interim order granted by this Court on 05.01.2010 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 4, 2011 DSK