Judgment 1. Initially prayer of the petitioner was for a direction to the respondents to re-site/re-position the HP. Gas dealership allotted to her from Rafiganj to Gaya. During the pendency of the writ application, the General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation issued letter dated 6.3.2007 whereby letter of intent dated 20.5.2002 and 24.1.2003 for allotment of H.R Gas distributorship were cancelled. Petitioner has filed I.A. No. 1774 of 2007 for quashing the letter No. PLRO/PNK/LPG dated 6.3.2007 whereby respondent H.P.C.L. has withdrawn letter of intent dated 20.5.2002 and letter dated 24.1.2003 for allotment of L.P.G. distributorship at the location Rafiganj, Bihar under "Open Women Category". Prayer of the petitioner is for restoration of letter of intent and allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship. 2. The Hindustan Petroleum corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as H.P.C.L.) advertised for L.P.G. distributorship for various places in the State of Bihar in the daily newspaper Hindustan dated 28.8.2000. Petitioner applied for L.P.G. distributorship at location Rafiganj, Bihar under Open women Category for marketing plan 1996-98. Dealer Selection Board conducted the interview on 9.10.2001 and as per policy three candidates were empanelled in preferential order for Rafiganj. Petitioner was first empanelled candidate for the location at Rafiganj. Letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 20.5.2002 for proposed gas distributorship at Rafiganj. Letter of intent was duly accepted by the petitioner. Subsequently letter of intent was cancelled by the respondents Corporation vide its letter no. PORO/ARD/LPG dated 14.8.2002 in view of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gass letter no. P-19011/ 4/2002-IOC dated 9.8.2002. The letter of intent was cancelled as the Government of India took a policy decision to rehabilitate the persons affected by Kargil war by allotting distributorship of L.P.G. and others. Smt. Rekha Devi, a Kargil war widow opted for L.P.G. distributorship at Rafiganj and she was granted distributorship at Rafiganj. However, the respondent Corporation restored the letter of intent in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 24.1.2003 subject to decision of Supreme Court. The petitioner was requested to apply, comply the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of intent dated 20.5.2002 for commissioning of distributorship at the earliest. The time for commissioning the distributorship was six months from the date of letter of intent. In the present case it started from the date of restoration of L.O.I. i.e. 24.1.2003. The petitioner was requested to apply, comply the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of intent dated 20.5.2002 for commissioning of distributorship at the earliest. The time for commissioning the distributorship was six months from the date of letter of intent. In the present case it started from the date of restoration of L.O.I. i.e. 24.1.2003. Since the respondent Corporation had already commissioned another L.P.G. dealership at Rafiganj in the defence personnel category to Rekha Devi, and petitioner was also asked to commission distributorship at the same place, the petitioner and her representatives meet the officials of the respondent Corporation on 3.11.2003. She represented her case before the Regional Manager (leg), respondent no. 4 that commissioning another distributorship at Rafiganj is not a viable proposal. She also made an application for re-siting of the dealership from Rafiganj to Gaya. She represented in this regard and the respondent Corporation vide letter dated 12.8.2005 informed the petitioner that they have considered her representation for re-siting of L.P.G. distributorship. They have analysed, conducted enquiry regarding market feasibility at Rafiganj. According to them commissioning of another distributorship at Rafiganj was viable as per their feasibility study. The Corporations stand is that the petitioner was asked to submit her time bound plan for commissioning of L.P.G. distributorship within fifteen days otherwise appropriate action will be taken, but petitioners case is that she never received this latter. So far viability of commissioning distributorship at Rafiganj is concerned she was not confident because it would incur huge expenditure. Finally by letter dated 6.3.2007 the respondent Corporation withdrew the letter of intent and letter of restoration for allotment of L.P.G. at location Rafiganj, dated 20.5.2002 and dated 24.1.2003 respectively. 3. Petitioners case is that she has right to know the basis of estimation and feasibility study as well as commercial viability before making huge investment at Rafiganj for commissioning of distributorship. Petitioners case is that she made application in response of advertisement issued by respondent for Rafiganj. This advertisement was based on the marketing plan of 1996-98 and it recommended for only one distributor at Rafiganj. During the process of selection after issuance of letter of intent, one Rekha Devi was allotted distributorship by Corporation under the special category of Kargil martyr widow. The viability limit of L.P.G. distributorship is 75% of the ceiling limit for different markets. During the process of selection after issuance of letter of intent, one Rekha Devi was allotted distributorship by Corporation under the special category of Kargil martyr widow. The viability limit of L.P.G. distributorship is 75% of the ceiling limit for different markets. The present distributor Rekha Devi has not been able to achieve that limit even after five years of her operation at Rafiganj. She has been able to achieve customers upto 3100 refill cylinders when for proper viability she is required to achieve 6000 refill cylinders at Rafiganj as per circular of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. In this circumstances the stand of the respondent Corporation with regard to commissioning another distributorship at Rafiganj is not at all viable. The stand regarding feasibility and viability is incorrect and contrary to the feasibility report. It has also been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had given proper information to the respondent Corporation regarding filing of the writ petition for recitation of the location and had also made a request to respondent no. 4 vide letter dated 10.11.2005 to withheld any adverse action till final decision of this Court, writ application. In spite of that the respondent vide letter dated 6.3.2007 has withdrawn the L.O.I. dated 20.5.2002 and restoration letter dated 24.1.2003 allotting L.P.G. distributorship. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also contended that Respondent Corporation completely ignored this fact that petitioner had applied for distributorship under special category i.e. under open (women) category under scheme for empowerment of women. Petitioner was restrained from commissioning the dealership on account of reasons beyond the control of petitioner. In such circumstance withdrawing/ cancelling the distributorship and L.O.I. on the ground of technicality is arbitrary and totally against the scheme of empowering women entrepreneurs. She by filing this writ application has only claimed her right to be treated fairly. She has been treated in a most unfair manner by the Respondent Corporation. Firstly her letter of Intent was cancelled, thereafter it was restored without any market feasibility report, in the changed circumstance as already one distributorship was commissioned at Rafiganj. In this circumstance if petitioner asked for re-sitement of distributorship location, there should have been a compassionate approach. This is not a fact that petitioner was asking for something unusual as in certain cases, order of resitement has been passed by the Corporation. In this circumstance if petitioner asked for re-sitement of distributorship location, there should have been a compassionate approach. This is not a fact that petitioner was asking for something unusual as in certain cases, order of resitement has been passed by the Corporation. Petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar vs. Vishwanath Pandu Barde and Another (1995 Supp(2) S.C.C. 549) wherein it has been held: "Providing adequate means of livelihood for all the citizens and distribution of the material resources of the com munity for common welfare, enable the poor, the Dalits and Tribes, to fulfil the basic needs to bring about a fundamental change in the structure of the Indian Society which was divided by erecting impregnable walls of separation between the people on grounds of caste, sub-caste, creed, religion, race, language and sex. Equality of opportunity and status thereby would become the bedrocks for social integration. Economic empowerment thereby is the foundation to make equality of status, dignity of person and equal opportunity to truism. The core of the commitment of the Constitution to the Social revolution through rule of law lies in effectuation of the fundamental rights and directive principles as supplementary and complementary to each other. The preamble, fundamental rights and directive principles-the trinity- are the conscience of the Constitution. Political democracy has to be stable. Socio-economic democracy must take strong roots and should become a way of life. The State, therefore, is enjoined to provide adequate means of livelihood to the poor, weaker sections of the society, the Dalits and Tribes and to distribute material resources of the community to them for common welfare etc." 5. Economic empowerment to the weaker section which also includes womens being integral constitutional scheme of showing economic democracy, is therefore a basic human rights and also fundamental right. The policy to allot distributorship to women for their economic empowerment is also a method showing economic democracy but respondent Corporation by not considering request of petitioner for resitement of the location and by cancelling the distributorship has infringed petitioners right of livelihood. 6. The respondents Corporation in its counter affidavit has stated that the writ is not maintainable for the reasons that till the date there is no agreement executed in between the petitioner and the Corporation. Allegation made by petitioner that her right of livelihood has been taken up has no substance. 6. The respondents Corporation in its counter affidavit has stated that the writ is not maintainable for the reasons that till the date there is no agreement executed in between the petitioner and the Corporation. Allegation made by petitioner that her right of livelihood has been taken up has no substance. 7. Fact is that the petitioner failed to comply the conditions mentioned in Letter of Intent and due to non-compliance it stood lapsed and finally withdrawn. Petitioner was allowed adequate opportunity in accordance with rules and regulations and policies, but she did not show her interest in the distributorship of L.P.G. at Rafiganj. The respondent Corporation can not accept petitioners request for resitement of the location of L.P.G. distribution without giving an opportunity to the second empanelled candidate. This would amount to depriving the second empanelled candidates from her right and opportunity for which she is entitled under the rules. Petitioners impression that the location at Rafiganj for the purpose of L.P.G. distributorship is non-viable is baseless, but if she is interested in location of her choice she can apply against the future advertisement. But she cannot claim for resitement of the location at her place of choice at this stage for the reason that Corporation has found second distributorship at Rafiganj viable. The statement of the petitioner regarding viability and feasibility of L.P.G. distributorship at Rafiganj is based on her personal knowledge but the Corporation is making this statement after assessment of market and feasibility report. Petitioner was asked to commission the distributorship at Rafiganj after conducting proper market survey for commissioning of second distributorship. Petitioner without any genuine reason has made it an issue and asking for resitement of location. Now this is not possible as period provided in letter of intent for fulfilling all conditions for commissioning of distributor has already lapsed. Petitioner can not demand distributorship as she herself had opted for Rafiganj. Another reason is that petitioner had not applied in response to the advertisement for distributorship of Gaya or Aurangabad. Advertisement dated 28.8.2000 was for Rafiganj. 8. Submission of the parties indicate some admitted facts. The petitioners appointment as L.P.G. dealer for the location at Rafiganj in pursuance to the advertisement for L.P.G. distributorship dated 28.8.2000 at location Rafiganj is admitted. Another reason is that petitioner had not applied in response to the advertisement for distributorship of Gaya or Aurangabad. Advertisement dated 28.8.2000 was for Rafiganj. 8. Submission of the parties indicate some admitted facts. The petitioners appointment as L.P.G. dealer for the location at Rafiganj in pursuance to the advertisement for L.P.G. distributorship dated 28.8.2000 at location Rafiganj is admitted. Issuance of the letter of intent in favour of petitioner on 20.5.2002 and its cancellation on 20.5.2002 on the direction of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas is admitted. Restoration of letter of intent on 24.1.2003 is admitted. This is also an admitted fact that in between issuance of letter of intent, its cancellation and restoration some development took place. One Rekha Kumari was allotted dealership in special category of "Kargil War widow" and her distributorship was commissioned prior to restoration of petitioners letter of intent. The advertisement dated 28.8.2000 for Rafiganj was made for single L.P.G. dealership on the basis of market survey and feasibility report for this purpose. On the basis of that feasibility report the petitioner was appointed for distributorship. When already another dealership has been commissioned at that place, it cannot be said that same location is feasible and viable for another distributorship. Petitioner was selected/appointed for both Rafiganj rural and urban area. The earlier dealer of L.P.G. Rekha Devi has already captured the market in this period. In this circumstance the stand taken by respondent H.P.C.L. that the petitioner is raising question regarding the viability only on her personal knowledge is not correct. The stand of the respondent is that the Chief Manager, L.P.G. Sales has informed the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide letter dated 23.11.2002 that the current feasibility study of Rafiganj has been reviewed to ascertain if second distributorship is viable and the Rafiganj has current potential of 9000 connection. Existing distributor has enrolled only 3000 customers and second will be able to enrol at the threshold 2000 customers by 3rd year of commissioning as such it is therefore viable to commission the proposed distributorship at Rafiganj and proposed resitement is not required. 9. I do not find much substance in this submission. The petitioner was earlier selected as candidate for distributorship because of the policy decision of the Government, but her selection was not given priority though her selection itself was in priority category. 9. I do not find much substance in this submission. The petitioner was earlier selected as candidate for distributorship because of the policy decision of the Government, but her selection was not given priority though her selection itself was in priority category. The respondent cannot refuse resitement stating that the application of the petitioner was only for Rafiganj. The respondents have refused to consider this aspect that at that time there was no other distributor functioning at Rafiganj and Rekha Devi was appointed after issuance of L.O.I. in favour of the petitioner. The choice of Rekha Kumari has been given priority considering that she is widow of Kargil Martyr. The case of the petitioner should have also been considered compassionately by the respondents considering that she is a women. Empowerment of women is the policy of the Government and special obligation of Corporation like respondents. Her case for resitement should not have been rejected by the respondents on the grounds, as mentioned in counter affidavit. 10. Accordingly the letter of withdrawal of distributorship dated 6.3.2007 and letter dated 20.5.2000 cancelling letter of restoration dated 24.1.2003 for allotment of L.P.G. distributorship in favour of petitioner under open women category are quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the letter of intent dated 24.1.2003 and consider petitioners request for resitement of location for L.P.G. distributorship. This direction is being issued to the respondents considering the fact that the allotment of L.P.G. distributorship was made in favour of the petitioner under open women category which in itself is a special category, Respondents must take all these decisions without any delay as already five years have elapsed from the date when for the first time Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the petitioner. 11. This application is allowed.