Judgment Krishn Kumar Lahoti, J. Per A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice : This petition takes exception to the Notification dated 16th November, 2011, Annexure P/1, whereby the Indian Oil Corporation intended to allot the distributorship at Itarsi, District Hoshangabad, which is presently managed by the petitioner. 2. The background in which the said Notification has been issued is that the petitioner was allotted distributorship for area of Hoshangabad (within municipal limits) vide Memorandum of Agreement dated 31st March, 1994. Later on, the Indian Oil Corporation intended to allot distributorship to reserved category person for area Itarsi, which is outside the area of operation referred to in the Agreement dated 31st March, 1994. However, no response was received from the reserved category. The Indian Oil Corporation, therefore, proceeded to allot the said distributorship to one M/s Avirat Gas Distributor of Hoshangabad. However, the said agency failed to fulfill the requirement specified by the Indian Oil Corporation and expressed its inability to take up distributorship for Itarsi area. As a result, the Department prepared a proposal for restructuring of Operational Area, Annexure P/4, the relevant extract of the same reads thus : “PROPOSAL Under the above mentioned circumstances, it is proposed that : a. M/s Garima Gas may be given the distribution of Itarsi market with effect from 16.08.99. b. M/s Garima Gas will arrange for a proper showroom, staff, mechanic and deliver boys immediately. c. Till such time, the godown is constructed and licensed, M/s Garima Gas will carry the refills from their godown at Hoshangabad in their won arrangement and cost. 100% Home delivery will be made to the customers. d. M/s Garima Gas will make arrangement for a godown with 8000 Kgs capacity latest by 31.10.99 and after the same the refill supply will be effected from the plant to M/s Garima Gas at Itarsi as Itarsi is already a existing industry market. Sub: Restructuring of Operational Area - M/s Avirat Gas Distributor, Hoshangabad. RECOMMENDATIONS Since the action as proposed above, is warranted due to inability of M/s Avirat Gas to meet the customer needs and is in the best interest of the Corporate image, the above restructuring/realignment may be approved by Area Manager, Bhopal.” 3. Sub: Restructuring of Operational Area - M/s Avirat Gas Distributor, Hoshangabad. RECOMMENDATIONS Since the action as proposed above, is warranted due to inability of M/s Avirat Gas to meet the customer needs and is in the best interest of the Corporate image, the above restructuring/realignment may be approved by Area Manager, Bhopal.” 3. On the basis of this proposal, the distributorship for area Itarsi was given to the petitioner, as extended work for distributorship of Hoshangabad, in addition to the area referred to in the Agreement dated 31st March, 1994. However, when complaints were received that such extension was not permissible and tantamounts to backdoor entry of the petitioner, the Corporation on re-examination of the situation decided to issue advertisement to invite applications for allotting regular distributorship for Itarsi area. The petitioner did not submit his application, as obviously, he was not eligible because the advertisement predicates that only reserved category candidate may apply for distributorship. The question is; whether the petitioner has any right under the Agreement dated 31st March, 1994, whereby the distributorship for area of Hoshangabad (within municipal limits) was allotted to the petitioner, for the additional area of Itarsi. Indisputably, Itarsi area is independent and not within the area of operation of Hoshangabad (within municipal limits). Moreover, as per the policy of the Indian Oil Corporation, distributorship for that area must be given to reserved category candidate. There is no provision in the Agreement dated 31st March, 1994 which enures any right in favour of the petitioner to assert his claim for Itarsi area, which is earmarked for reserved category candidate. Suffice it to observe that the petitioner has no right whatsoever under the Agreement dated 31st March, 1994 in this behalf nor he can claim that the distributorship for the area Itarsi was allotted to him on permanent or regular basis. There is no averment in the writ petition that such promise was made to the petitioner and as a result of which, he invested substantial amount and changed his position to his detriment. Reliance placed on the averments made in paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 of the petition, do not even remotely indicate such a case. A priori, the argument of promissory estoppel is also unavailable to the petitioner. 4. The other argument of the petitioner is that the officer of the Indian Oil Corporation was acting under dictation of respondent No.2. Reliance placed on the averments made in paragraph 5.3 to 5.6 of the petition, do not even remotely indicate such a case. A priori, the argument of promissory estoppel is also unavailable to the petitioner. 4. The other argument of the petitioner is that the officer of the Indian Oil Corporation was acting under dictation of respondent No.2. Interestingly, no officer of Indian Oil Corporation has been named as respondent in the petition by name nor the name of such officer is disclosed in the petition who is under influence of respondent No.2. The allegation of malice, in fact, therefore is unsubstantiated. 5. Taking any view of the matter, we fail to understand as to how the petitioner can successfully assail the Notification issued by the Corporation, Annexure P/1, inviting applications for granting dealership in respect of Itarsi area for reserved category candidate. 6. The challenge in this petition, in our opinion, is devoid of merits. Hence the same is dismissed. 7. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that at the relevant point of time, when the dealership was executed in favour of the petitioner in 1994, Itarsi area was part of Hoshangabad. However, on plain reading of the Agreement, it is obvious that the Dealership Agreement in favour of the petitioner was limited to Hoshangabad (within municipal limits). It was not extended for Itarsi area at all. Moreover, the averment in the petition does not substantiate this position. Hence, we find no merit even in this argument. 8. It is also submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to resort to appropriate remedy for recovery of loss caused to the petitioner due to starting his unit for Itarsi area. It may be open to the petitioner to resort to any such proceeding, which will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. We are not expressing any opinion either way in that regard. All questions in those proceedings will have to be decided, on its own merits.