Judgment A. N. Trivedi, J. 1. An advertisement dated 19.8.1981 (Annexure-1) was issued on behalf of the Indian Oil corporation, Respondent No.1 inviting applications for appointment of four retail Outlet Dealers in the State of bihar and the petitioner in response to the said advertisement made an application for being considered for appointment as Retail Outlet Dealer at gaunaha, West Champaran under the unemployed Graduate Category. One of the conditions of eligibility in the advertisement was that the parents joint income should not exceed Rs.15,000/-per annum. The petitioner was called for interview by Respondent No.4 and thereafter the Deputy General manager, Respondent No.3 again asked the petitioner on 27.5.1982 for final interview along with such proof in support of his capacity to provide finances/facilities for dealership, distributorship. The petitioner finally received letter dated 8.7.1982 from the respondent No.3 Deputy General manager of the Corporation offering dealership of the Retail outlet at gaunaha on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter (Annexure-2 ). Respondent No.4, the Divisional manager of the Corporation at Patna by his letter dated 13.7.1982 (Annexure-3)asked the petitioner to confirm tne offer to make all financial and other arrangements within a period of four months. The petitioner by his letter dated 26.7.1982 (Annexure-4) acknowledged the letter of intent and accepted all the terms and conditions mentioned therein and categorically stated that he is in a position to make all financial and other arrangements within a period of four months. By his letter 6.10.1982 (Annexure-5) the petitioner informed the respondent No.4 that he had selected a plot of land at Gaunaha and had also made some improvements in the land. By his letter, dated 8.12.1982, (Annexure-6) the petitioner informed the divisional Manager of the Corporation that he had obtained suitable plot of land after its approval by the Senior sales Officer, Muzaffarpur. 2. The District Magistrate, West champaran in view of the Resolution by the Gaunaha Prakhand Special panchayat Samittee recommended the corporation for establishment of the retail Outlet Dealership Station at the site and over the land purchased by the petitioner. The State Bank of India, chanpatia Branch, vide certificate dated 26.5.1982 confirmed that the petitioner had deposited Rs.46.000/- in the Bank. 3. Respondent No.3 by his letter dated 8.8.1983 (Annexure-8) informed the petitioner that the letter of intent granted earlier has been revoked and cancelled. The State Bank of India, chanpatia Branch, vide certificate dated 26.5.1982 confirmed that the petitioner had deposited Rs.46.000/- in the Bank. 3. Respondent No.3 by his letter dated 8.8.1983 (Annexure-8) informed the petitioner that the letter of intent granted earlier has been revoked and cancelled. It has been stated in the said letter that on verification it has been found that the particulars of income mentioned by the petitioner in his application dated 16.8.1981 and the enclosures thereto are not correct and the petitioner had deliberately concealed certain material facts with a view to let it appear that his parents joint income does nor exceed Rs.15,000/-. It has been further stated that the petitioner cannot legitimately claim to be "not self-employed" and therefore the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed as dealer and accordingly the letter of intent dated 8.7.1982 is being revoked and cancelled. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said cancellation has filed the present Writ Petition in this Court. While issuing notice to the respondents on 20.9.1984 a Division Bench of this court directed status quo to be maintained in respect of appointment of dealership at Gaunaha, West champaran. This order has neither been vacated nor modified till date. 5. The respondents have filed counter Affidavit in which it has been, inter alia, stated that respondent No.1 had received several letters from Muk-hiya, Gram Panchayat Gaunaha, several members of the Legislative Assembly, chairman, Zila Parishad and others stating that the petitioner was not eligible for being appointed as a dealer as he owns 2 Cinema Halls at narkatiaganj and a house at chhajubagh, Patna which has been let out to the Hindustan Fertilizer corporation. Further case of the respondents is that the enquiries revealed that the petitioner was a member of the hindu Joint Family which owns amongst other a big house at chhajubagh, Patna which has been let out on an annual monthly rent of Rs.45,000/- and the Joint Family also owns 2 Cinema Halls, namely, Himalya Chitra mandir and Bhagwati Picture Places apart from agricultural land measuring 97 acres. The stand of the Corporation is that the petitioner had suppressed these material facts in his original application and had obtained the letter of intent by misrepresentation and, therefore, is not eligible for appointment as dealer. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the cancellation communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.8.1983 (Annexure-8 ). The stand of the Corporation is that the petitioner had suppressed these material facts in his original application and had obtained the letter of intent by misrepresentation and, therefore, is not eligible for appointment as dealer. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the cancellation communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 8.8.1983 (Annexure-8 ). 6. In the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the petitioner it has been stated that the condition of eligibility was that the applicants parents income should not exceed 15,000/- and that the petitioner surviving parent was only his mother who has no interest in the Chhajubagh house and Bhagwati Picture Place has gone in loss of over 50,0007- and the petitioners mother has only 175th interest of Hindu undivided family in himalya Chitra mandir that earned profit of Rs.16,000/- during the relevant period. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that without making any enquiry and giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the letter of intent has been arbitrarily cancelled and in support of his contention learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad high Court in Vinod Kumar Mittal V/s. Union of Indian and others (A. I. R.1991 Allahabad 1 ). 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that no right was conferred by the grant of letter of intent which has been cancelled since it was found after due enquiry that the petitioner was not eligible for being appointed as Retail Outlet Dealer. 9. Having considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 8.8.1983 cannot be sustained. 10. Admittedly no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore it cannot be said that the cancellation of the letter of intent is in consonance with the principle of natural justice. Besides it has not been shown by the respondents that the income of the mother of the petitioner is more than rs.15,000/- so as to disentitle the petitioner for being considered for grant of Retail Outlet Dealership. 11. The respondents have not placed on record the enquiry report or any material which had come to their notice on the basis of which the letter of intent was cancelled and revoked. 11. The respondents have not placed on record the enquiry report or any material which had come to their notice on the basis of which the letter of intent was cancelled and revoked. It was open for the respondents to have cancelled the letter of intent after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and making available to him the complaints which they have received so that the petitioner could show cause whether or not the income of his mother was more than Rs.15,000/- per annum. 12. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.8.1983 (Annexure-8) is quashed. Respondent no.3, Deputy General Manager, marketing Division, Eastern Region, calcutta, shall issue notice to the petitioner to show cause annexing all such materials within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the petitioner shall submit his explanation annexing all such documents on which he desires to place reliance within six weeks from the date of receipt of the show cause and shall also indicate whether he desires opportunity of personal hearing and in that event Respondent No.3 shall fix a date and. intimate the petitioner to appear before him for personal hearing. After the enquiry is completed, Respondent no.3 shall pass appropriate orders and communicate to the petitioner as early as possible. 13. Till the matter is not finally decided by respondent No.3, status quo shall be maintained as regards the appointment of retail Outlet Dealer. Petition Allowed.