JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. 1. The point to be determined in this case is :- Whether petitioner is entitled to the grant of LPG distributorship when it is detected by the Oil Company that by suppressing material facts the petitioner obtained the Letter of Intent ? 2. The petitioner filed the present writ petition assailing the impugned order dated 14th July, 2015 issued by Chief Area Manager, Kolkata thereby withdrawing the Letter of Intent issued in favour of the petitioner upon selection of LPG distributorship at Barrackpore, District-North 24-Parganas under S.C. category pursuant to the advertisement dated 9th September, 2012. 3. Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned counsel elaborately submitted that the petitioner’s husband was a Letter of Intent (for short LOI) holder in respect of a LPG dealership. Such LOI was granted on 2nd of October, 2010. However, by letter dated 1st of October, 2012 the petitioner’s husband wrote to the respondents-IOCL that due to financial and family problems he cannot continue with the LPG dealership. 4. Mr. Saha Roy pointed out that the language of the letter clearly shows in view of the fact that the petitioner’s husband expressed his intention to resign with immediate effect by writing as follows :- “At this critical junction I have to resign from the Awarded Dealership headed Bakshi Filling Station. Therefore, you are requested to accept my resignation from the Awarded Dealership etc…..” 5. Mr. Saha Roy pointed out that the letter of resignation was accepted on 8th of October, 2012. The petitioner, who was facing a strained matrimonial relations with her husband, in order to earn a decent livelihood applied before the IOCL on the 11th of October, 2012 for grant of a new LPG dealership. In the declaration form she, inter alia, declared that she was married and neither she nor her spouse, unmarried sons/unmarried daughters held a LOI for LPG dealership of any Oil Company. The application of the petitioner was dated 10th of October, 2012 and was accepted on 11th of October, 2012, both dates being subsequent to the date of receipt of petitioner’s ex-husband’s resignation letter by the respondents-IOCL. 6. Mr. Saha Roy further submitted that the petitioner became the ultimate selectee of the LPG distributorship and pursuant to such selection she applied before several authorities who issued the necessary certificates/no objections in her favour. 6. Mr. Saha Roy further submitted that the petitioner became the ultimate selectee of the LPG distributorship and pursuant to such selection she applied before several authorities who issued the necessary certificates/no objections in her favour. The petitioner also obtained substantial financial accommodation from the bank to commence construction at the selected site. 7. Mr. Saha Roy submitted that at the point of time when the petitioner was about to commission the LPG distributorship, she was slapped with the impugned order dated 14th of July, 2015 by the respondents-IOCL withdrawing the LOI issued in her favour. The purported explanation offered by the respondents-IOCL behind the withdrawal was a complaint by her former husband, i.e. the petitioner and her ex-husband divorced by mutual consent by an order of the competent Civil Court dated 15th of May, 2015 in MAT Suit No.3074/2014 to the effect that the petitioner had submitted false particulars to the respondents-IOCL that neither she nor any of her family members held a LOI for LPG distributorship on the date of her application. 8. Mr. Saha Roy strongly argued that the resignation of the petitioner’s ex-husband from the LPG distributorship was accepted by the respondent-IOCL on the 19th of August, 2013. On the same date the LOI was issued in favour of the petitioner for commissioning the above distributorship. Relying on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (1978) 2 Supreme Court Cases page-301 at paragraphs-28, 115 and 116 in the matter of Union of India & Ors vs. Gopal Chandra Misra & Ors., Mr. Saha Roy argued that on a plain reading of the resignation letter it has been opined by the Hon’ble Apex Court that such resignation letter was intended to take immediate effect. Citing a parity of circumstances to the facts of the present case, Mr. Saha Roy pointed out that the resignation letter of the petitioner’s ex-husband was couched in similar language intending to take immediate effect. 9. Therefore since the petitioner applied subsequent to such resignation and had to fill in a dotted-line declaration before the respondents-IOCL, she intimated that subsequent to the resignation letter none of the family members held a LOI in respect of a LPG distributorship. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned communication dated 14th of July, 2015 is illegal and without any basis. 10. Per contra, Mr. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner the impugned communication dated 14th of July, 2015 is illegal and without any basis. 10. Per contra, Mr. Manwendra Singh Yadav, learned Counsel for the respondents-IOCL submitted that the norms for accepting a resignation are clearly stated in the guidelines for selection to the LPG distributorship. Such norms have been followed in the facts of this case and the respondents-IOCL could not have come to any other conclusion than the conclusion reflected in the impugned letter dated 14th of July, 2015. 11. Mr. Yadav submitted that admittedly resignation offered by the petitioner’s ex-husband was not accepted before 19th of August, 2013. Therefore, as on 19th of August, 2013 and the period prior thereto, including the date of the application of the petitioner dated 11th of October, 2012 no declaration could have been given to the effect that no family members of the petitioner were holders of a valid LOI in respect of a LPG distributorship. 12. Mr. Yadav further contended that it is evident from the complaint filed by husband of the petitioner on 18th July, 2014 which was received by the respondent company on 21st July, 2014. Some extract of the said complaint is quoted below :- “He was issued a LOA for dealership of Retail Outlet M/s Bakshi Filling Station, Itapukuria, Nadia on Chakdha-Bongaon Road under category SC He tendered his resignation dated 01.10.2012 from the above dealership. He mentioned some family disputes alleging that his wife and father-in-law pressurized him to submit the resignation from the dealership. He requested to terminate the said LPG distributorship. The above complaint was investigated and it was found that a. Sri Sanjit Bakshi is the husband of Smt. Priyanku Bakshi as claimed in the application for LPG distributorship at Barrackpore under SC category. b. Sri Sanjit Bakshi was issued LOA vide Ref. No.2011/IN000682/2101/00009 dated 29.11.2011 for the dealership fo Retail Outlet M/s Bakshi Filling Station, Itapukhuria and submitted his resignation on 08.10.2012. c. Smt. Priyanku Bakshi, his wife applied for LPG distributorship at Barrackpore under SC category on 11.10.2012 in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper on 09.09.2012. b. Sri Sanjit Bakshi was issued LOA vide Ref. No.2011/IN000682/2101/00009 dated 29.11.2011 for the dealership fo Retail Outlet M/s Bakshi Filling Station, Itapukhuria and submitted his resignation on 08.10.2012. c. Smt. Priyanku Bakshi, his wife applied for LPG distributorship at Barrackpore under SC category on 11.10.2012 in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper on 09.09.2012. d. The process of consideration/acceptance of resignation tendered by Sri Sanjit Bakshi from the Retail Outlet M/s Bakshi Filling Station, Itapukhuria was under way by CDRSM, Kolkata DO and not finalized/completed/conveyed to the candidate n or before 11.10.2012 which was the date of submission of application by Smt. Priyanku Bakshi for the LPG distributorship at Barrackpore under SC category. e. The notarized affidavit declaration dated 10.10.2012 submitted by Smt. Priyanku Bakshi under column no.4 w.r.t multiple dealership was on 11.10.2012 which states that : She is married and neither her spouse Sri Sanjit Bakshi has dealership/distributorship or hod letter of intent for retail outlet or SKO-LDO dealership or LPG distributorship or RGGLV of any Oil Company and That if any information/declaration given by her in her application or in any document submitted by her in support of her application for the award of LPG distributorship or in the affidavit shall be found to be untrue or incorrect or false IOC may withdraw its LOI.” 13. Mr. Yadav further contended that in the LOI issued to the petitioner vide column no.9.2 and 9.3 it is stated that if any of the LOI holder’s family members have received LOI for any other dealership of OMC the LOI will be withdrawn and if any statement made in the application or in the document enclosed at any stage then the LOI or the distributorship is liable to be terminated. 14. Mr. Yadav further contended that since the application was submitted by the petitioner during the pendency of the resignation of her husband Sri Sanjit Bakshi, therefore, action under the LOI should be in accordance with the provision mentioned in the Multiple Dealership Clauses. 15. Mr. 14. Mr. Yadav further contended that since the application was submitted by the petitioner during the pendency of the resignation of her husband Sri Sanjit Bakshi, therefore, action under the LOI should be in accordance with the provision mentioned in the Multiple Dealership Clauses. 15. Mr. Yadav further vehemently urged that it is immaterial as to whether the petitioner’s husband was not a holder of letter of intent on that date on which the petitioner was issued LOI for LPG dealership as the Multiple Dealership norms precludes a candidate to participate in the selection process at the initial stage alone, therefore, since the petitioner’s husband was a holder of LOI at that point of time and his resignation was not accepted on the date when the petitioner was issued LOI therefore as per Multiple Dealership norms petitioner has suppressed the material facts before the oil company that her husband was an LOI holder. 16. Mr. Yadav also emphasized on the point that even the letter of intent issued to the petitioner clearly mentioned in clause 9.2 and 9.3 about Multiple Dealership norms and the effect of suppressing of material fact by a candidate. In support of his contention Mr. Yadav relied on a Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in 2013 (9) SCC Page-363 Paragraphs 10 to 25 On the same issue of suppressing of material facts he relied on another Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in 1994 (1) SCC Page-1 Paragraph-5. 17. Mr. Yadav further vehemently urged that mere inclusion in the panel does not confer any right of appointment. In support of his contention he relied on a Hon’ble Supreme Court decision reported in 1996 (2) SCC Page-168. 18. Mr. Yadav also produced the guidelines of selection of regular LPG distributors. On the point of mere tendering resignation will not creat automatic acceptance on that very date of resignation he relied on a Hon’ble Apex Court decision reported in 2001 (1) SCC Page-158 Paragraph 6 and 7. Mr. Yadav further submitted that the relinquishment made in different forms or assume an unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. In support of his contention Mr. Yadav relied on AIR 1993 Supreme Court Page-1662 Paragraph-15. 19. Mr. Yadav further submitted that the relinquishment made in different forms or assume an unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. In support of his contention Mr. Yadav relied on AIR 1993 Supreme Court Page-1662 Paragraph-15. 19. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and after perusing the record I find that admittedly the petitioner’s ex-husband resignation letter dated 1st October, 2012 has been accepted and the dealership agreement dated 19th March, 2012 was terminated by the oil company by issuing the letter dated 19th August, 2013 and on the self same date i.e. on 19th August, 2013 by another letter the Indian Oil Corporation awarded LOI in favour of the petitioner against the vacancy with the instruction for construction of godown and show room and for arrangement of fund. As a result thereof the petitioner somehow managed to arrange the fund, Trade license, Conversion Certificate, Land document, legal Metrology Certificate, NOC from the District Magistrate, Explosive Certificate, Storage License, Fire License etc from the different competent authorities and submitted the same with the oil company under her covering letter dated 19th November, 2014. At that juncture the petitioner was issued with the withdrawal letter dated 14th July, 2015 written by the Chief Area manager, IOL, Kolkata. It is also evident from the record that on the date of affirmation of affidavit on 10th October, 2012 and on the submission of application i.e. on 11th October, 2012 the ex-husband of the petitioner was neither a licensee nor a LOI holder of retail outlet dealership as he has submitted his resignation on 1st October, 2012. It is the gross negligence on the part of the oil company to keep such resignation letter pending for about one year and only prior to issuance of LOI in favour of the petitioner, accepted that resignation on 19th August, 2013 and on the self same date the company issued LOI in favour of the petitioner. 20. It is also not explained by the oil company as to why the resignation letter dated 1st October, 2012/8th October, 2012 was accepted at a belated stage on 19th August, 2013 though from the record it is evident that the petitioner applied against the vacancy on 11th October, 2012 and admittedly on the 1st October, 2012 the petitioner’s ex husband submitted his resignation. Court also cannot ignore the point raised in the complaint lodged by Sri Sanjit Bakshi against the petitioner on 18th July, 2014 which are indicated hereinabove. It is also very much difficult to accept that oil company has no knowledge regarding submission of resignation letter by Sanjit Bakshi on 1st October, 2012 which was received on 8th October, 2012. When the application for resignation of Sri Sanjit Bakshi was received by the company on 8th October, 2012 the respondent oil company could have rejected the petitioner’s application on 11th October, 2012 only on the sole ground that resignation tendered by Sri Sanjit Bakshi received on 8th October, 2012 has been under process and since that has not been accepted till that date, but unfortunately in the present case the oil company allowed the petitioner to proceed with for obtaining relevant certificate/NOC from the competent authorities and as a result thereof the petitioner obtained all the relevant licences as well as certificates from the different competent authorities and also arranged huge fund for construction of the godown, but only by the impugned letter dated 14th July 2014 petitioner was informed that her LOI has been withdrawn due to the reasons as mentioned in the said impugned order. 21. It also creates some cloud of doubt in the mind of the Court that the oil company was sitting tight over the application of Sanjit Bakshi for a long period and only on 19th August, 2013 the petitioner’s ex husband namely Sri Sanjit Bakshi’s application for resignation was accepted and on the self same date the petitioner was offered with the LOI by the oil company. Had it been a case of the petitioner that her ex husband has not filed any application for resignation prior to 11th October, 2012 when the petitioner applied for that vacancy declared by the oil company for LPG distributorship at Barrackpore then the stand taken by the oil company could have been accepted but unfortunately in the present case it is evident that long back on 1st October, 2012 petitioner’s ex husband submitted his resignation and the oil company without assigning any reason was sitting tight over the said resignation application and ultimately only on 19th August, 2013 the resignation was accepted and on the self same date the petitioner was also offered with LOI. 22. 22. It would be not out of place to mention that the petitioner’s husband after securing service/employment under Central Government only on 21st July, 2014 wrote a letter to the Chief Area Manager, Kolkata thereby making numerous allegations against his ex wife and on the basis of the said application lodged by Sri Bakshi on 21st July, 2014 the respondent oil company has withdrawn the petitioner LOI interalia on the ground that the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in respect of multiple dealership (Clause No.4) was found to be untrue. Accordingly on the basis of the LOI condition under Column No.9.2 and 9.3 the said LOI was withdrawn. But in my considered view the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in respect of multiple dealership to some extent cannot be treated as a false one as admittedly when the petitioner applied against the said vacancy on 11th October, 2012 the petitioner’s ex husband submitted his resignation much prior to that on 1st October, 2012. 23. It is the deliberate negligence on the part of the oil company to accept the said resignation within the reasonable time, but unfortunately it was not done by the oil company. The oil company had the duty to act but they refrained to do so, therefore belated acceptance of resignation letter should not adversely affect the petitioner and form a ground of withdrawal of LOI of the petitioner, the oil company could not take advantage of their prolonged inaction. On the contrary no steps has been taken by the oil company on the basis of the resignation letter submitted by petitioner’s ex husband on 1st October 2012 till 11th October, 2012 and no explanation is forthcoming from the oil company for belated acceptance of the said resignation letter. 24. The Court also cannot shut its eyes on the practical aspect of the matter that pursuant to the LOI the petitioner has already expended huge amount of fund for obtaining different licences from different authorities and also generated a huge fund for construction of godown and show room. 25. Court also cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner requires this dealership business for her livelihood, maintenance and survival, being otherwise eligible to obtain the same. 25. Court also cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner requires this dealership business for her livelihood, maintenance and survival, being otherwise eligible to obtain the same. Thus on the basis of the above discussions, in my considered view, the withdrawal of LOI by the impugned order dated 14th July, 2015 issued by the Chief Area Manager, Kolkata Area Office cannot be sustained in the facts and circumstances of the case. 26. Accordingly the impugned withdrawal of LOI dated 14th July, 2015 issued by the Chief Area manager, Kolkata Area Office is hereby quashed and set aside. Hence I direct the Chief Area Manager, Kolkata Area Office to revisit the issue in the light of the observation as indicated above after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three (3) weeks from the date of communication of this order and thereafter communicate the decision to the petitioner within one week. 27. With this direction this writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. 28. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties after fulfilling all the formalities.