IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.12959 OF 2007 VINAY KUMAR PRASAD, SON OF LATE JAGARNATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – STATION ROAD (EAST) WARD NO. 2 AT + P.O. AND DISTRICT – SAMASTIPUR ................................ PETITIONER VERSUS 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH) KOLKATA, PIN CODE – 700068. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MARKETING DIVISION, PATNA DIVISION OFFICE 34, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA, PIN CODE – 800 001. 3. THE SENIOR DIVSIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., BEGUSARAI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, B-70, BARAUN REFINERY TOWNSHIP, DISTRICT – BEGUSARAI, PIN CODE – 851 117. ................................ RESPONDENTS ----------- 3. 08.03.2010 Way back in the year 2004, petitioner was issued a letter of intent on 25.10.2004. This was to set up a Retail Outlet under the Open category for the marketing plan 1987-88. The letter of intent laid down certain time-frame, during which the petitioner was obliged to arrange for land and execution of the lease-deed or transfer of land in favour of the Corporation, which was not done. A request was made by the petitioner for extension of time. This request was acted upon and time was granted. But, even the extended time-frame did not beget the required result and the letter of intent issued in favour of the petitioner stood withdrawn vide communication dated 2 09.08.2007. The communication contained in Annexure – 1, is under challenge in the writ application. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proper procedure was not followed. No notice was issued to him to show cause and if all the above has not been done, the consequential action contained in Annexure – 1 deserves to be quashed. Stand of the respondent Corporation is that from Annexure – 1 itself, it will be evident that the letter of intent had a time-frame, even the request of the petitioner for extending the time was granted by the Corporation, but when nothing came to be done, the consequential order has come to be passed. It is not a case that the petitioner was taken by surprise, but was well aware of his obligation, which flowed flew from the letter of intent. Counsel also informs the Court that after the withdrawal of letter of intent the said location had been re-advertised in another category. The selection has been made and even the dealership has been commissioned. Learned counsel for the Corporation further submits on the basis of the ratio laid down in the case of Rajasthan Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. Vrs. Maha Laxmi Mingrate Marketing Service Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (1996), 10 SCC, 405 that a letter of intent is not a right in favour of the petitioner to be appointed as a Dealer. The Hon’ble Apex Court had this to say in para 7 – “The High Court was also not right in importing the 3 doctrine of audi alteram partem in these circumstances. If the conduct of Respondent 1 was such that it did not inspire any confidence in the appellant, the appellant was entitled to decline entering into any legal relationship with Respondent 1 as its selling agent. The Letter of Intent merely expressed an intention to enter into a contract. If the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Intent were not fulfilled by Respondent 1, and if the conduct of Respondent 1 was otherwise not such as would generate confidence, the appellant was entitled to withdraw the Letter of Intent. There was no binding legal relationship between the appellant and Respondent 1 at this stage and the appellant was entitled to look at the totality of circumstances in deciding whether to enter into a binding contract with Respondent 1 or not.” There were reasons therefore for the respondents to act and petitioner has no legal right in view of the law settled in the case of Rajasthan Co-operative (Supra). Another aspect as already noted above is that due to the said delay on the part of petitioner, Company went for re- advertisement and settlement in favour of another person. What has already been done can not be undone now. In the above circumstances, the writ has no merit and it is dismissed. SKM (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)