JUDGMENT K.J. SENGUPTA, J. 1. BOTH the aforesaid appeals are against common and identical judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 12th June 2011 passed in the aforesaid writ petition filed by Calcutta Landing and Shipping Company Ltd (hereinafter referred to as CLS in short). 2. BY the impugned judgment and order the learned Trial Judge has been pleased to allow the prayers of CLS, and thereby the respondent namely Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HPCL in short) and its officials were directed to issue the letter of appointment to the CLS ignoring the contention of the HPCL in their letter dated 10th September 2010. The first mentioned appeal has been preferred by the HPCL which was party to the writ petition, while in the second one the appellants were not a party, and having prima facie satisfied as to their affectation of right leave was granted by the Court to prefer appeal against the same very judgment and order. Since the issue raised and involved and further decision rendered therein by the learned Trial Judge are common and identical so it was decided by this Court to be heard analogously and a common judgment would be delivered. Accordingly we need to set out the short facts which gives rise to filing of the writ petition and preferring first mentioned appeal hereunder: Pursuant to an advertisement issued by the petroleum companies including the HPCL the writ petitioner/respondent (CLS) filed an application for obtaining dealership in open category of HPCL for Howrah area in the district of Howrah being Serial No. 62 of the list mentioned in the advertisement. After selection process being undertaken the CLS came to be second successful candidate. On scrutiny of the application of the first successful candidate and upon verification of the proposed site of the showroom and godowns HPCL was not satisfied with the facility and infrastructure offered by the first candidate hence its candidature was rejected. Accordingly automatic choice came to be with CLS. It is an admitted case that while applying, C.L.S. has specifically mentioned that required godown and showroom would be located within the Howrah Municipal area being Ward No. 49. Accordingly automatic choice came to be with CLS. It is an admitted case that while applying, C.L.S. has specifically mentioned that required godown and showroom would be located within the Howrah Municipal area being Ward No. 49. After considering all the aspects on 16th January 2010 HPCL issued a conditional Letter of Intent in favour of C.L.S. wherein it was specifically mentioned that the said Letter of intent would be subject to result of an appeal pending before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court being APOT 228 of 2011 (CLS v. HPCL). In the said conditional provisional letter of intent various conditions were stipulated. CLS thereafter in response to the said letter dated 10th January 2010 by letter dated 27th January 2010 supplied all the information and details as required in the said conditional letter of intent. On 25th February 2010 HPCL issued an unconditional Letter of Intent in continuation of the Conditional Letter of Intent dated 16th January 2010. The said confirmed Letter of Intent was issued after interview being taken by CLS on 11th March 2008 and considering the letter dated 27th January 2010. The relevant portion of the said confirmed Letter of Intent dated 25th February 2010 is set out as follows: "We have considered the reply on the clarifications/information sought by us and provided by you vide your letter dated 27.01.2010 for new LPG dealership at Howrah. 1. Please be informed that by this Letter of Intent we propose to offer you the dealership at Howrah, District Howrah, State West Bengal, on the following terms and conditions: 2. (a) To operate the distributorship, you will develop the facilities required as mentioned by you in clause No. 13A1 and 13B1. You will construct godown for storing minimum 8000 kgs, LPG filled in cylinders on the land as mentioned in your application dated 07.11 2007. (a) To operate the distributorship, you will develop the facilities required as mentioned by you in clause No. 13A1 and 13B1. You will construct godown for storing minimum 8000 kgs, LPG filled in cylinders on the land as mentioned in your application dated 07.11 2007. Similarly the showroom, as mentioned in your application dated 07.11.2007 is to be provided as per Corporation's standard layout and colour scheme along with telephone connection, within a period of 4 months from the date of this letter." There are other conditions in the said Letter of Intent we do not think those to be relevant and proper for deciding the issue herein: Conditions mentioned in the said confirmed Letter of Intent was accepted by CLS and the latter altered its position by making all arrangements for constructing required godown and showroom at the location as mentioned in their application dated 7th November 2007 which has also been accepted. All permissions and licenses as required from various authorities were also obtained. Even a sum of Rs. 5,25,000/- on account of security for supply of the gas and cylinders has been deposited. After having everything made ready and after intimation being given for operating the dealership, HPCL did not take any action for issuance of formal Letter of Appointment and for entering into formal contract. In the confirmed letter of Intent it was specially mentioned that the writ petitioner shall complete everything ready within the time stipulated therein failing which consequence would follow. Having found no response, CLS made repeated representations, thereafter all of a sudden on 10th September 2010, HPCL by a letter it was informed that the dealership was against a terminated dealership located in Central Howrah. It was therefore imperative that the proposed show room to be located at a place which would be convenient to the benefit of the majority of the HP gas consumers of the terminated dealership. Challenging the aforesaid letter and also for not taking action in concluding the contract aforesaid writ petition was filed. The second mentioned appeal was filed by a number of peoples who described themselves in the cause title in their memorandum of appeal as well as in the application for interim relief to be registered consumers or prospective consumers likely to be catered by CLS. 3. The second mentioned appeal was filed by a number of peoples who described themselves in the cause title in their memorandum of appeal as well as in the application for interim relief to be registered consumers or prospective consumers likely to be catered by CLS. 3. UPON careful reading of the application for interim relief it appears to us these appellants numbering 20 are busybodies as no document has been furnished with their application that they are registered consumers of the HPCL in respect of the dealership at Howrah. Even in the said application there is no specific averment that these writ petitioners are consumers. 4. NOTWITHSTANDING the above factual position Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing in support of this appeal contends that the consumers of the locality would face unmanageable inconvenience if godown/showroom is shifted from present centrally located place to one that might be located in future. If this show room is located at a distance of 7 kilometer from Central Howrah at the proposed site offered by the CLS there would be virtual stoppage of supply of gas. HPCL is the monopoly supplier of cooking gas which is an essential commodity and as such they cannot adopt any policy decision whereby the consumers in that area at large would or likely to, suffer. He also submits that their grievances are so serious and genuine in nature that the local MLA had to intervene and to write a letter to the District Magistrate to see that the show room of the said dealership is not shifted to a place which would be at a distance of 7 kilo- meters. According to Mr. Mukherjee the letter which has been challenged by the writ petitioner is the culmination of the protest made by these group of people and followed by the letter of the local MLA therefore the judgment and order suffers from infirmity and illegality and these issues raised by his client were neither ventilated nor decided. We are of the view that the report of the local MLA is of no value in a dispute of this nature. We fail to understand as to why HPCL has acted upon on the basis of the letter of the local MLA. We are of the view that the report of the local MLA is of no value in a dispute of this nature. We fail to understand as to why HPCL has acted upon on the basis of the letter of the local MLA. It is the deal between HPCL and the prospective dealers and they are to provide the service to their respective consumers at a place which is convenient for dealer and the petroleum company. 5. WE find that apart from as above almost similar grievance was raised on this subject by another group of people namely Kaliprosad Gupta and Ors. in WP No. 19775 (W) of 2010 against HPCL. The learned single Judge heard the writ petition decided and held as follows: "No right to any consumer has been infringed. The supply of the LPG Cylinders has not been affected. However, mere apprehension cannot be a ground for initiation of writ proceedings. It is for the Oil Company and its distributor to expeditiously attend to complaints. If the oil company and/or its dealer is agreeable to attend to complaints from customer located 6/7 Kms. away, no consumer can complain. In an age of technological advancement consumers are not required to lodge complaints personally. Complaints may be lodged by phone and even through the internet. Moreover, as observed above it is open to any consumer to apply for change of distributor. In any case, all consumers cannot have distributors at their doorstep." 6. WE think that the reasoning and findings of the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition appears to be logical and possible and the same are accepted by this Court. In addition thereto, we are of the view that the consumers of any oil company cannot compel the latter to open any showroom or godown at a place convenient to them. If the oil company cannot meet their demand it is open for them to switch over to any other oil company which is in the same operational field. It will appear from the advertisements a number of oil companies advertised for appointment of dealership. WE are unable to accept in view of factual position, that HPCL is a monopoly supplier. WE think that present appeal should face the same fate as the earlier writ petition did. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at 100 GMs. It will appear from the advertisements a number of oil companies advertised for appointment of dealership. WE are unable to accept in view of factual position, that HPCL is a monopoly supplier. WE think that present appeal should face the same fate as the earlier writ petition did. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed with costs assessed at 100 GMs. Nothing has been shown to conclude aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition having been upset by the appropriate Court. Now we deal with the appeal filed by the HPCL. In this appeal the learned Counsel for the Oil Company HPCL contends that the respondent CLS could not satisfy the requirement as desired by the company. It was made subsequently clear that CLS's present dealership is sought to be opened at a place within the area of the terminated dealership. Howrah means as advertised, Central Howrah and not a place at a distance of 7/8 Kms. from Howrah Sadar. Mere deposit of security amount is not sufficient to the entitlement of dealership. The learned Trial Judge did not consider the aforesaid aspect of the convenience of the consumers who had hitherto been served by the terminated dealer. 7. THE learned Counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent on the other hand supports the judgment of the learned Trial Judge and submits that at the last stage when after having issued the Letter of Intent they agreed to open the showroom at a place mentioned in their application. After having accepted the said terms HPCL cannot turn round to put forward new terms for appointment. THE HPCL is simply estopped from doing so. THE subsequent letter that is under challenge conveys arbitrary and capricious decision. This appears to have been issued under the pressure and/or compulsion if not dictate of political forces. THE Government Company must act fairly and equitably, must not succumb to illegal pressure of a busybody. 8. HE has drawn our attention to the advertisement issued, and submits that Serial No. 62 for which the dealership was applied speaks about Howrah which means area of Howrah Corporation and location of the showroom is situated within Ward No. 49 at Baltikuri which not beyond Howrah. As a matter of fact one Mr. 8. HE has drawn our attention to the advertisement issued, and submits that Serial No. 62 for which the dealership was applied speaks about Howrah which means area of Howrah Corporation and location of the showroom is situated within Ward No. 49 at Baltikuri which not beyond Howrah. As a matter of fact one Mr. Patel sought for clarification from HPCL about the meaning of Howrah and officials of HPCL clarified that Howrah is considered to be the place falling within the Howrah Municipal Corporation area in the district of Howrah, and location of showroom should be within Howrah Municipal Corporation area. In view of the understanding and clarification by HPCL of the area Howrah as mentioned in Item No. 62 it cannot be contended that the Howrah means the Central Howrah. Besides he submits that his client has already arranged an additional showroom in and around the Central Howrah area. After having considered rival contention of the learned Counsel for the parties only decision which has fallen for consideration is whether Howrah as mentioned in Item No. 62 relates to Howrah Central as alleged in the last letter of HPCL dated 10th September 2010. Secondly if not, whether HPCL can change the terms and conditions as mentioned in their confirmed letter of intent. While answering to the first question we think that learned Counsel for CLS is right in saying that the meaning of Howrah as mentioned in Item No. 62 in the advertisement cannot be Central Howrah as it will appear from the letter dated 30th April, 2008 addressed to one Mr. Patel by HPCL - which clarifying the word Howrah that Howrah means Municipal Corporation area of Howrah. The place of showroom and godowns is located within Ward No. 49 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation area. Besides that the advertisements were issued not only by HPCL but it was issued by other oil companies also, namely IOCL and Bharat Petroleum Ltd. and there cannot be any different meaning of Howrah in the District of Howrah had it been so it could have been mentioned Howrah Central specifically as it has been mentioned in Item No. 53, Howrah Sadar. The reasonable and logical interpretation in this context would be Howrah Municipal Corporation area. The reasonable and logical interpretation in this context would be Howrah Municipal Corporation area. Under those circumstances we hold that the showroom offered by CLS conforms to terms and conditions as mentioned in their Letter of Intent by HPCL in which it has been specifically mentioned that location would be as per your location. 9. NEXT question comes whether the HPCL can alter the terms after issuance of Letter of Intent. We have no hesitation to hold that after issuance of confirmed Letter of Intent HPCL cannot unilaterally change the terms of the advertisement or the terms of the Letter of Intent. This is in complete deviation from and/or at variance with the agreed terms. The same is not permissible under the law. The respondents cannot act arbitrarily and capriciously. It seems to us from the records the respondent Corporation has succumbed to pressure of political forces as it could be found from the language of the letter dated 10th September 2010 which really echoes the alleged grievance of the consumer as mentioned in the letter of local MLA. Hence we hold that the HPCL has taken a stand different from what they had taken at early stage. That apart in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge as mentioned above the said place has already been held to be in consonance with the advertisement issued and said judgment was not upset by any appropriate forum. In the said Writ Petition being No. 19775(W) of 2010, HPCL was a party and the findings and observation made therein is equally binding upon them and they cannot simply take any plea contrary to the findings of the learned Judge in the previous Writ petition though CLS was not a party none the less the issue raised herein is hit by issue estoppel, if not express res judicata. 10. IN view of the discussion as above the learned Trial Judge has correctly found and held in His Lordship's judgment. We affirm the judgment and order of the learned Trial Judge with the costs assessed at 200 G.Ms. to be paid by the appellant- HPCL. Accordingly this appeal also stands dismissed. Prayer for stay is refused.