JUDGEMENT 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited a Government of India Enterprises and a Public Sector Undertaking advertised for appointment of retail dealership of L.P.G. at Ram Nagar in the District of West Champaran. Petitioner Sushil Kumar and respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra were amongst two of the applicants for the same. Applications and other papers of the applicants were scrutinized, applicants were interviewed and a panel was prepared by the Selection Committee of the Corporation. In the said panel petitioner Sushil Kumar was empanelled as the first candidate and respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra was empanelled as the second candidate. Before letter of intent could be issued by the Corporation in favour of the petitioner Sushil Kumar, respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2004 before this Court in which he has challenged the empanelment of petitioner as the first empanelled candidate and pleaded for his disqualification. The Corporation was also a party to the said litigation. 2. In the said writ petition, a prayer for interim relief was made but not pressed. Raman Kumar Mishra, the petitioner of that writ petition had challenged the empanelment of Sushil Kumar on the ground that though to the Corporation Sushil Kumar disclosed to be the son of one Birendra Kumar Sharma, he was in fact the adopted son of one Narendra Kumar Sharma though naturally born son of Birendra Kumar Sharma. Birendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma were own brothers. Narendra Kumar already had a petroleum dealership. In terms of the relationship clause which barred dealership being given in close proximity of relations, Raman Kumar Mishra pleaded that Sushil Kumar should have been debarred and held to be ineligible. These assertions of Raman Kumar Mishra in the said writ petition were based on certain pleadings in Title Suit No. 63 of 2000 which was pending before the Munsif, Bettiah, West Champaran. The said title suit which was filed by Smt. Nutan Devi, wife of late Narendra Kumar Sharma against Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kumar, Sushil Kumar who was shown to be the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma (not Narendra Kumar Sharma) and wife of Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kumar. The said title suit which was filed by Smt. Nutan Devi, wife of late Narendra Kumar Sharma against Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kumar, Sushil Kumar who was shown to be the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma (not Narendra Kumar Sharma) and wife of Birendra Kumar Sharma @ Birendra Kumar. Smt. Nutan Devi the plaintiff claimed certain properties to be her property on the ground that the said property was purchased by her father-in-law in the name of her son, Sushil Kumar who died at the age of two years. Thus plaintiff Nutan Devi firstly showed the present Sushil Kumar to be the son of Birendra Kumar and then pleaded that she also had a son Sushil Kumar who died when he was only two years old. In the said title suit the present Sushil Kumar who was defendant No. 2 appeared and set up a plea that Sushil Kumar as mentioned in the sale deed was in fact the present Sushil Kumar who was the naturally born son of Birendra Kumar Sharma but had gone in adoption to Narendra Kumar Sharma and the plaintiffs story that Sushil Kumar was her child who died at the age of two years was false. The plaintiff in her rejoinder denied the story of taking the present Sushil Kumar in adoption and pleaded that Sushil Kumar was taking a plea of convenience to usurp her property which she was entitled individually after the death of her child Sushil Kumar and her husband Narendra Kumar Sharma. The written statement of the present Sushil Kumar in the said title suit was the basis for the said writ petition. 3. In the said writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 846 of 2004, the Corporation appeared and filed counter affidavit. In the said counter affidavit they defended their selection as being rightful and not vitiated on any ground. They specifically stated that the present Sushil Kumar had submitted inter alia his matriculation certificate drawn up more than ten years before the dealership was advertised, issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna which showed that the father of the present Sushil Kumar was Birendra Kumar Sharma. They referred to the Voters Identity Card, Voter List and the Passport of present Sushil Kumar to show that he was in fact the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma and not of Narendra Kumar Sharma. They referred to the Voters Identity Card, Voter List and the Passport of present Sushil Kumar to show that he was in fact the son of Birendra Kumar Sharma and not of Narendra Kumar Sharma. They also referred to a probate case being Probate Case No. 11 of 1982 which was disposed of by the learned District Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah on 23.5.1985 more than fifteen years before the site was advertised for the dealership. In the said probate case in respect of property of the father of Birendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma certain properties were to go to present Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar was shown as the son of Birendra Kumar and the probate proceedings were duly signed, acknowledged and accepted by both Birendra Kumar Sharma and Narendra Kumar Sharma. 4. In the said counter affidavit of the Corporation, it is clear that the Corporation was not oblivious of the said Title Suit No. 63 of 2000 in which Sushil Kumar had pleaded to be the adopted son of Narendra Kumar. It would be useful to quote Paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit of the Corporation in the said writ petition which reads thus:- "That similarly the reference of Title Suit No. 63/2000 relating to ownership of a piece of land in which respondent No. 5 has made assertions to the effect, that he is adopted son of Narendra Kumar Sharma cannot be acted upon as the matter is sub-judice wherein, validity of adoption may also be adjudicated till such adjudication is made by a competent Court the Corporation cannot act upon it." 5. The said writ petition is pending with no interim order whatsoever but still even though petitioner Sushil Kumar was the first empanelled candidate he was not issued the letter of intent. 6. From the aforesaid fact, one thing is clear that the dispute was known to all parties and all parties had taken their respective stand. Now when petitioner Sushil Kumar came to know that the Corporation had issued letter of intent to Raman Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 5 against whom the Corporation in the earlier writ petition had taken firm stand, filed the present writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 18555 of 2008. Petitioner Sushil Kumar challenged the action of the Corporation in virtually taking a somersault on the same very fact and with regards the same very issue. Petitioner Sushil Kumar challenged the action of the Corporation in virtually taking a somersault on the same very fact and with regards the same very issue. The Corporation has filed counter affidavit in which they justified their somersault on the ground that petitioners selection as the first empanelled candidate being sub-judiced before this Court in the earlier writ petition and in public interest without canceling the petitioner Sushil Kumars first empanelment they have chosen to bestow the dealership on Raman Kumar Mishra, respondent No. 5 which would be subject to the result of the writ petition filed by Raman Kumar Mishra. Respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra has appeared and filed counter affidavit reiterating all that was said earlier. 7. In my view, the question for consideration of this Court is whether in the facts and circumstances stated above, is the Corporation right in its decision to issue letter of intent to respondent No. 5, Raman Kumar. Mishra ignoring the first empanelled petitioner Sushil Kumar. It may be mentioned that letter of intent though was not available to the petitioner Sushil Kumar when the writ petition was filed, it has been annexed to an interlocutory application bringing it on record as a part of the writ petition and challenging it. 8. In my view, the question does not create any problem and the answer is simple and straight. All the facts remaining the same, the Corporation now commits a volte-face on the ground of public necessity ignoring petitioner Sushil Kumar whom they had been jealously defending. In my view, public interest for an early establishment of dealership does not releave (sic) the Corporation from the stand it had earlier taken in the counter affidavit filed before this Court, the facts remaining unchanged. If there was any urgency of establishing dealership, then there being no interim order from any Court restraining the Corporation from proceeding with its selection, the natural choice and the legal choice and the non-arbitrary choice should have been the first empanelled candidate and not preserving the right of first empanelled candidate giving the right of dealership to the second empanelled candidate ignoring totally the first empanelled candidate. It may also be relevant to note here that the Corporation having taken stand in the earlier writ petition noticing all the controversies did not even think it right in those writ petitions to take leave of the Court in that writ petition to withdraw its counter affidavit on better wisdom drawning (sic-dawning?) upon itself, the source of which one does not know, at this late stage. By taking this decision of issuing letter of intent to respondent No. 5, Raman Kumar Sharma, the Corporation rendered the earlier writ petition infructuous because Raman Kumar Mishra has been granted relief by the Corporation itself even though in the litigation they had opposed Raman Kumar Mishra. This conduct of the Corporation is reprehensible and regrettable. 9. The earlier stand of the Corporation in the earlier writ was correct as no Court had given any finding with regards to alleged adoption set up in a private dispute which was wholly denied and contested by the alleged adoptive mother herself. 10. It may be remembered that Corporation is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution for the said purposes of Part III of the Constitution. It is governed by Article 14 in all its aspects including contractual matters. It cannot act like a private individual who has the right to chose, act at its will with person whom he is like to do his business in making such a choice but Corporation has to act not only reasonably but in a non-arbitrary manner governed by Article 14 of the Constitution. In this aspect, I can do no better then refer to paragraph 12 of the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty V/s. The International Airport Authority of India and Others since reported in AIR 1979 SCC 1628 wherein this aspect has been exhaustively dealt with. 11. Here on the same set of facts, first Corporation in the first writ application takes a positive stand as between the dispute of two contesting individually for dealership but on passage of time, on the same set of fact in respect of the same very dispute as between the same very two individuals, it takes a somersault for no valid reasonable ground and with no justification. This is per se arbitrary. This is per se arbitrary. The decision of the Corporation to issue letter of intent to respondent No. 5 Raman Kumar Mishra at this stage thus cannot be upheld as legally valid, it is thus quashed. There being no impediment, neither any stay from any Court of competent jurisdiction, the Corporation would be well advised to proceed in the matter forthwith in accordance with law. 12. This writ application thus stands allowed.