WA 175/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI TEH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY JUDGMENT & ORDER (oral) Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Sri A. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appell ant in both the appeals, Sri M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing f or the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Sri N. Dutta, learned Senior C ounsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.175/2007. 2. The common order dated 12.1.2007 passed in WP(C) Nos.4931/2005 and 6167/ 2005 being under challenge in both the appeals, the same were taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts that would be required to be noticed for the purposes of the p resent adjudication may, briefly, be stated at this stage. Pursuant to a notice issued by the respondent Corporation inviting appli cations for appointment of Indane LPG distributors in Kamrup District the appell ant as well as the respondent No.4 in W.A. No.175/2007 along with others had sub mitted their applications. Pursuant to interviews held a list of suitable candid ates was prepared by the respondent-Corporation in order of merit/preference whe rein the appellant was placed at serial No.1 and the respondent No.4 in W.A. No. 175/2007 was placed at serial No.2. Thereafter, letter of intent was issued in f avour of the writ appellant by the respondent-Corporation on 19.7.2004. 4. It will be necessary to notice, at this stage, that the following condit ions were stipulated in the notice inviting applications under the heading ’impo rtant note’. (a) The applicant should furnish, along with the application, details of lan d for LPG Godown, which he/she may make available for the distributorship. (b) Considering the location of the land from the point of view of commercia l angle, applicants willing to transfer the land on ownership/long lease to the Oil Company at the rates acceptable to the Oil Company would be given preference . (c) If an applicant, after selection, is unable to provide the land indicate d by him/her earlier, within a period of 2(two) months, the allotment of the dis tributorship made to him/her would be cancelled. 5. The writ appellant in his application had mentioned that a suitable plot of land located at Hengrabari within the City of Guwahati was being offered by him for setting up the distributorship. After the letter of intent was issued in favour of the writ appellant on 19.7.2004 it appears that the writ appellant wa s not able to construct the required Godown on the land offered by him in his ap plication on account of public resistance. Eventually, on 29.11.2004 the authori ty of the respondent Corporation was informed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) that construction of LPG Godown by the appellant on the land offe red by him at Hengrabari is not feasible. It further appears that the writ appel lant, being unable to construct the Godown on the land offered by him, had infor med the respondent Corporation by letter dated 26.10.2004 that he is making an o ffer of an alternative plot of land situated at Pub Boragaon, Guwahati in lieu o f the original plot of land situated at Hengrabari. In the above facts, the resp ondent Corporation by a letter dated 27.6.2005 informed the writ appellant that as per the conditions of the letter of intent the appellant was required to cons truct the LPG Godown on the plot of land indicated by him in his application. Ac cordingly, the appellant was advised to obtain necessary approval and statutory permission for construction of the LPG Godown on the said land within two months from the date of the letter dated 27.6.2005 failing which it was intimated tha t necessary action will follow. Aggrieved by the said letter dated 27.6.2005 iss ued by the respondent Corporation, WP(C) No.6167/2005 was filed by the appellant seeking appropriate interference of the Court. The Respondent No.4 in W.A. No.1 75/2007, who was placed at serial No.2 of the list of suitable candidates, had a lso instituted a writ proceeding i.e. WP(C) No.4931/2005, essentially, seeking a direction for grant of letter of intent in his favour in the facts and circumst ances noted above. The writ petition filed by the appellant having been dismisse d by the impugned order dated 12.1.2007 and the writ petition filed by the respo ndent No.4 in WA No.175/2007 having been disposed of in the light of the decisio n in the writ petition filed by the appellant, the two appeals under considerati on have been preferred by the writ petitioner in WP(C) No.6167 of 2005. 6. Sri A. K. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ appella nt, has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 1(a) of the letter of inte nt dated 19.7.2004 issued to the writ appellant. Sri Goswami has submitted that from a reading the aforesaid para 1(a) of the letter of intent dated 19.7.04 it is clear and evident that the writ appellant had the option of offering an alte rnative piece of land which is suitable for setting up the distributorship. Sri Goswami has further submitted that such an offer having been made by the letter of the appellant dated 26.10.2004, the communication dated 27.6.2005 issued by t he respondent Corporation insisting on clearance from the District administratio n in respect of the land initially offered is both misconceived and untenable in law. Sri Goswami has also referred to the terms and conditions in the notice in viting applications under the heading Important Note to contend that it was op en for the writ appellant, even after grant of letter of intent, to make availab le an alternative plot of land which is suitable for the purpose of the distribu torship in question. 7. On the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the writ appellant th e issue arising for determination in the present proceedings revolve around the question as to whether a person who has been selected for grant of the distribut orship and to whom a letter of intent has been issued can, at such stage, offer alternative land for setting up the distributorship ignoring what was offered by him in the application. 8. The terms and conditions stipulated in the notice inviting applications under the heading Important Note make it abundantly clear that the applicant s hould furnish along with his application details of the land on which the distri butorship is to be set up, in the event a letter of intent is to be granted to s uch an applicant. The second condition stipulated under the aforesaid heading is the option of the applicant to offer the land mentioned in his application for being taken on ownership or long lease basis by the respondent Corporation in wh ich event such applicant is to be given preference. The third clause of the afor esaid terms and conditions stipulate that if an applicant, after selection, is u nable to provide the land indicated by him earlier, within a period of two month s, the allotment of distributorship made to him would be cancelled. 9. A reading of the aforesaid terms and conditions incorporated in the noti ce inviting applications, in our considered view, excludes any option to an appl icant to make available alternative land in the event the land mentioned by him in his application is found or has become unsuitable or unavailable for any reas on. Not only the terms and conditions noted above does not admit any such option , it is our considered view that such an option, will have the effect of renderi ng redundant and futile the condition insisted upon by the notice inviting appli cations that an applicant has to mention the details of the land that is being o ffered. Insofar as the clause 1(a) of the letter of intent dated 19.7.2004 is co ncerned, our reading of the aforesaid part of the letter of intent leaves us sat isfied that what had been stated in para 1(a) is in the context of the offer mad e by the appellant for taking over of the land by the respondent Corporation on ownership/long lease basis. The contents of the aforesaid para 1(a) of the lette r of intent dated 19.7.2004, according to us, cannot be construed to mean that t he writ appellant had been given an option to make available an alternative pie ce of land. 10. The writ appellant had mentioned a specific area of land situated in Hen grabari, Guwahati on which the LPG Godown and distributorship was to be set up. Due to public complaints and the stand taken by the district authority on such c omplaints the land became unsuitable. The notice inviting applications did not c ontemplate offer of alternative piece of land by the appellant and, that too, at a stage of construction of the Godown after grant of letter of intent. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no interference with the subsequent commu nication dated 27.6.2005 can be made by the Court. The land offered by the writ appellant having become unavailable, naturally, the respondent Corporation coul d not have accepted the offer of alternative land made by the writ appellant. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in either of the app eals. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and ci rcumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.