JUDGMENT : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner (appellant herein), whose writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4190 of 2005 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 16.11.2009. 2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that a public advertisement was issued by the respondents-corporation for the grant of dealership of petrol and diesel on 26.02.2004. On the basis of the certain criteria, applicants preferred the applications and they were interviewed on 15.06.2004 and result was declared on 03.07.2004 and this appellant was declared as top most candidate. Nonetheless, later on, it was found by the Indian Oil Corporation that the land upon which a petrol pump was to be established, title of which was in dispute. There were other brother and sister of this appellant, who were also claiming dealership on the very same land. The Indian Oil Corporation cannot decide right, title and interest upon the property, hence, the earlier result was cancelled and this appellant was called for a fresh interview by letter dated 15.07.2005 (Annexure-7 to the Memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). It further appears from the facts of this case that instead of attending the fresh interview, this appellant preferred writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4190 of 2005 claiming dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation on the ground that respondent – corporation cannot cancel the result, already declared on 03.07.2004 mainly on the ground that brother and sister or other claimants, for the very same land in question, have already waived their right in favour of this appellant, and hence, there was no question of any dispute upon the land in question whatsoever arises, to be decided by the Indian Oil Corporation. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.4190 of 2005 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no legitimate right vested in this appellant to get the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation. Dealership is a contract between the dealer and the Indian Oil Corporation for sale of the petroleum product. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no legitimate right vested in this appellant to get the dealership of the Indian Oil Corporation. Dealership is a contract between the dealer and the Indian Oil Corporation for sale of the petroleum product. There cannot be a compulsory contract, hence, there is no legal right vested in this appellant to get contract especially when the land upon which a petrol pump was to be installed, for which other brother and sister of this appellant were also claiming their dealership. The Indian Oil Corporation cannot decide the right, title or interest upon the property in question and, therefore, the only view left out with the Indian Oil Corporation is to call this appellant again for interview, cancelling the earlier result dated 03.07.2004 and instead of attending this interview and clarifying his position, vis-a-vis other claimants, who are nearby kith and kin of this appellant, a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.41902 of 2005 has been preferred, which has been rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge, for want of any legitimate right vested in this appellant to get contract of dealership and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 4. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons : I. The appellant is searching contract for dealership from the Indian Oil Corporation, for which an advertisement was given on 26.02.2004, interview was conducted on 15.06.2004 and the result was declared on 03.07.2004. II. It further appears from the facts of the case that for the land upon which appellant was to install a petrol pump, the brother and sister of this appellant were also claiming the dealership. There was also a dispute about the right, title and interest upon the immovable property upon which the Petrol Pump was to be installed. As this issue cannot be finally decided by the Indian Oil Corporation, they cancelled the earlier result dated 03.07.2004 and again issued a letter dated 15.07.2004 by which this appellant was called for interview, but, he has not attended the same and not clarified any position about the waiver of the right by his brother and sister. III. As this issue cannot be finally decided by the Indian Oil Corporation, they cancelled the earlier result dated 03.07.2004 and again issued a letter dated 15.07.2004 by which this appellant was called for interview, but, he has not attended the same and not clarified any position about the waiver of the right by his brother and sister. III. It further appears from the facts of this case that no error has been committed by the Indian Oil Corporation in cancelling the earlier result dated 03.07.2004 and in giving a fresh call letter dated 15.7.2004 for interview as there was more than one persons, who were claiming the right, title and interest upon the very same land upon which a petrol pump was to be installed. IV. There is no legitimate right vested in this appellant to get a contract of dealership nor this Court can compel the respondent-corporation that they must enter into a contract with this appellant for dealership for sale of petroleum products. There cannot be a compulsory contract otherwise element of “free consent” gets out as per Section 10 read with Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and, hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. 5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we hold that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and thus, we see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge. 6. Thus, there being no substance, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.