JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.S.G. and Sri Kumar Sambhav, learned counsels appearing for the opposite parties and perused the material on record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following main relief: “i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2021 issued by opposite party No.4 for cancellation of location between Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48 at NH-128 Sultanpur Akbarpur Road (Annexure No.1). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.01.2021 (Annexure No.2). iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamous commanding the opposite parties to take steps including issuing letter of intent to petitioner for awarding of Retail Outlet Dealership on location in between Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48, NH-128, Sultanpur Akbarpur Road.” 3. Facts of the case are that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 24.11.2018 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (10C) for award of Regular Retail Outlet Dealership, the petitioner had applied for one of the locations, location No. 268 between Kilometer Stone No. 45 and 48 at NH-128 Sultanpur-Akbarpur Road, District Ambedkar Nagar which district was erroneously published in the advertisement, correct being District Sultanpur. As the petitioner had not offered any land in terms of item No. 4 (v) of the Brochure on selection of dealers for Regular and Rural Retail outlets (in short “the Brochure”), he was placed in Group 3 and one Mahima Gupta was selected to whom a letter of intent dated 12.01.2019 was issued, but as the Initial Security Deposit (ISD) and the documents for further selection process were not submitted her candidature was cancelled and her name was placed in Group 3. The petitioner was then given the opportunity to provide suitable piece of land at the advertised location/stretch vide letter dated 04.06.2019. To offer the land, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with one Ram Charitra for 20 years and informed the opposite parties through e-mail on 04.09.2019. However, the letter of intent was not issued and vide communication letter dated 13.01.2020 it was informed that the subject location No. 268 was cancelled against which the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6632 (MB) of 2020: Shishir Patel Vs. However, the letter of intent was not issued and vide communication letter dated 13.01.2020 it was informed that the subject location No. 268 was cancelled against which the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6632 (MB) of 2020: Shishir Patel Vs. Union of India and others, but in the meantime, as the Indian Oil Corporation vide letter dated 04.03.2020, kept the letter dated 13.01.2020 in abeyance, the writ petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 05.03.2020 providing that no further direction was required, however, granting liberty to the petitioner to assail the order, if any adverse action was taken against him. On 29.01.2021 the petitioner submitted a representation for decision being taken in the matter and also filed Writ Petition No. 5366 (MB) of 2021, but as the opposite party No.4-Deputy General Manager (RS) Allahabad Divisional Office, by order dated 18.05.2021 decided the representation giving the reasons for cancellation, the petitioner challenging the orders dated 13.01.2020 and 18.05.2021 filed the present petition. 4. Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation of the location after more than two and half years of the advertisement at this belated stage is illegal and arbitrary. The reason assigned for cancellation i.e. the error in publication of district Ambedkar Nagar, instead of correct district Sultanpur was a typographical error and was not material. He submitted that in pursuance of the letter of the Indian Oil Corporation dated 04.06. 2019 the petitioner having entered into a lease agreement, to offer land to the Indian Oil Corporation, acquired a legitimate expectation of getting the Retial Outlet dealership which could not, now, be denied. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the order dated 18.05.2021 is speaking one and assigns the reasons for cancellation of the location, which is error in the publication of the name of district Ambedkar Nagar, whereas the location falls in district Sultanpur and on noticing this mistake the subject location was cancelled and communication dated 13.01.2020 was made as the land should be in the advertised area/stretch and wrong description of the district must have deprived many eligible prospective candidates from participating in the selection process which is required to be fair and transparent and under the circumstances the plea of legitimate expectation is not open to the petitioner. 6. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The reason assigned in the order dated 18.05.2021 for cancellation of the subject location, is that it falls in district Sultanpur and not in district Ambedkar Nagar which was erroneously advertised. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that the subject location falls in district Sultanpur but in the advertisement district Ambedkar Nagar was published. 8. The procedure for selection, as per Clause 14 of the Brochure, with respect to the advertisement reads as under: “14. Selection Procedure Selection will be basically made through draw of lots or bidding process depending upon the type of Retail outlet site as defined in Clause 3. This will also be indicated against each location in the advertisement. A. Draw of Lots -Selection through draw of lots amongst eligible candidates will be made for: -Corporation Owned Dealer operated outlets under Corpus Fund Scheme (CFS sites) -Dealer Owned Dealer Operated outlets ("B"/"DC" sites) B. Bidding Process Selection through Bidding process will be made for Corporation Owned Dealer Operated Sites ("A" / "CC" sites) except for Corpus fund locations mentioned above. However, in case of tie in bid amount, selection will be made through Draw of Lots amongst tied up bidders. C Advertisement : Advertisements will be released in Newspapers intimating selection of RO dealerships. All details in this regard like name of RO location, District, State, Category etc. will be hosted in website www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in Guidelines for selection (Brochure) will also be hosted in websitewww.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in Brochure for Selection of Retail Outlet dealerships can be down loaded from the website OMCS/ www.petrolpumpdealerchayan.in free of cost. Interested applicants should go through the Brochure carefully for filling up their application form.” 9. Thus Clause 14 C of the Brochure clearly provides for release of advertisements in newspapers intimating selection of Retail Outlet dealership, filling all the details like name of the Retail Outlet location, district, State, Category etc. 10. The error in the advertisement with respect to the district in which the subject location falls would also not be in consonance with the principles of fairness and transparency in the matter of grant of dealership. 11. Clause 14C of the Brochure provides that advertisements will be “released”. One of the meanings of "release" is to publish. 10. The error in the advertisement with respect to the district in which the subject location falls would also not be in consonance with the principles of fairness and transparency in the matter of grant of dealership. 11. Clause 14C of the Brochure provides that advertisements will be “released”. One of the meanings of "release" is to publish. In the context of release of an advertisement in the newspapers, it would mean the publication of the advertisement in the newspapers. In State of Madhya Pradesh and another Vs. Shri Ram Ragubir Prasad Agarwal and others (1979) 4 SCC 686 , it has been held that “Contextually speaking, we are satisfied that 'Publication' means more than mere communication to concerned officials or departments. To publish a news item is to make known to people in general; "an advising of the public or making known of something to the public for a purpose". In our view, the purpose of Section 3 animates the meaning of the expression ‘publish’. ‘Publicaiton’ is "the act of publishing anything; offering it to public notice, or rendering it accessible to public scrutiny…...an advising of the public; making known of something to them for a purpose”. 12. “Advertisement” in common parlance means to make publicly known an information by some device and to draw or attract attention of public/individual concerned to such information. In ICICI Bank and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (2005) 6 SCC 404 , the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that an advertisement is a matter that draws attention of the public or segment of public to a product, service, person, organization or line of conduct in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product, service, person, organization or line of conduct intended to promote sale or use of product or range of products. Paragraphs, 14 and 15 of the ICICI Bank (supra) are quoted as under: “14. …………………...The dictionary definitions of the word 'advertisement' are as under :- BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 8TH EDITION Advertising -1. The action of drawing the public's attention to something to promote its sale. 2 The business of producing and circulating advertisements LAW AND COMMERCIAL DICTIONARY Advertisement -Notice given in a manner designed to attract public attention. Edwards v. Lubbock Country, Information communicated to the public, or to an individual concerned, as by handbills, newspaper, television, bill-boards, radio. First Nat. Corporation v. Perrine. 2 The business of producing and circulating advertisements LAW AND COMMERCIAL DICTIONARY Advertisement -Notice given in a manner designed to attract public attention. Edwards v. Lubbock Country, Information communicated to the public, or to an individual concerned, as by handbills, newspaper, television, bill-boards, radio. First Nat. Corporation v. Perrine. NEW ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITTANICA VOLUME-I Advertising.-the techniques used to bring products. services, opinions, or causes to public notice for the purpose of persuading the public to respond in a certain way toward what is advertised. Most advertising involves promoting a good that is for sale, but similar methods are used to encourage people to drive safely, to support various charities, or to vote for political candidates, among many other examples. COLLINS DICTIONARY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE Advertisement-any public notice, as a printed display in a newspaper, short film on television, announcement on radio, etc designed to sell goods, publicize an event, etc. Advertising -(1) the action or practice of drawing public attention to goods, services, events etc., as by the distribution of printed notices, broadcasting. etc. 2) the business that specializes in creating such publicity, 3) advertisements collectively: publicity. THE CHAMBERS DICTIONARY Advertisement -the act of advertising; a public notice with the purpose of informing and / or changing public attitudes and behaviour; a short performance recorded for radio, T.V. etc. to advertise goods or services; news. 15. An advertisement is a matter that draws attention of the public or segment of public to a product, service, person, organization or line of conduct in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product, service, person, organization or line of conduct intended to promote sale or use of product or range of products. An advertisement is an information that producer provides about its products or services. An advertisement tries to get consumers to buy a product or a service. An advertisement is generally of goods and services and is an information intended for the potential customers and not a mere display of the name of the company unless the same happens to be a trade mark or trade name.” 13. Thus, release of advertisement in newspaper is not an empty formality. The purpose is to make publicly known an information and to attract the attention of the public/individual concerned to such information for the purposes for which such advertisement is published or released. Thus, release of advertisement in newspaper is not an empty formality. The purpose is to make publicly known an information and to attract the attention of the public/individual concerned to such information for the purposes for which such advertisement is published or released. In the context of the selection for the Retail Outlet Dealership, the purpose of the advertisement is to make publicly known that at a particular location the dealership of Retail Outlet is to be granted, inviting and attracting the attention of the public to such information to enable the willing persons to apply for the same. The information, therefore, must be correct and complete. Incomplete information or incorrect information defeats the object of the publication as in such a case the attention of the public shall not be drawn to the correct information which may result in depriving many willing and eligible persons to respond to the information published. 14. We now proceed to consider the submission of the petitioner’s counsel based on the doctrine of legitimate expectation. His submission is that the petitioner entered into lease agreement with a private person to offer the land to the Corporation in pursuance of letter of the Corporation dated 04.06.2019 and once, the petitioner, acting upon the said letter, entered into twenty years lease agreement with the private person, the petitioner cannot be denied the dealership of Retail Outlet. 15. In order to consider the above submission we proceed to consider the doctrine of legitimate expectation and whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner had any legitimate expectation based upon which the relief as prayed can be granted to the petitioner. 16. The doctrine of legitimate expectation has been elaborately discussed; its dimensions explained and law laid down in the leading case of Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499 followed in the subsequent judgments, We would refer to the Case of Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraphs 15 to 20 : “15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. State of Bihar (2006) 8 SCC 381 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraphs 15 to 20 : “15. What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it is not a legal right. It is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It is a concept fashioned by courts, for judicial review of administrative action. It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. In short, a person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine is rather weak as its slot is just above 'fairness in action' but far below 'promissory estoppel'. It may only entitle an expectant : (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. In appropriate cases, courts may grant a direction requiring the Authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. A legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the 'legitimate expectation'. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based on established practice (as contrasted from legitimate expectation based on a promise), can be invoked only by someone who has dealings or transactions or negotiations with an authority, on which such established practice has a bearing, or by someone who has a recognized legal relationship with the authority. A total stranger unconnected with the authority or a person who had no previous dealings with the authority and who has not entered into any transaction or negotiations with the authority, cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimate expectation, merely on the ground that the authority has a general obligation to act fairly. 16. In Union of India V. Hindustan Development Corporation [ 1993 (3) SCC 499 ], this Court explained the nature and scope of the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' thus : (SCC P. 540, para 28) "For legal purposes, the expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope nor can it amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. However earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves cannot amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense." [Emphasis supplied] 17. This Court also explained the remedies flowing by applying the principle of legitimate expectation : (SCC pp. 546-47, para 33) "it is generally agreed that legitimate expectation gives the applicant sufficient locus standi for judicial review and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is to be confined mostly to right of a fair hearing before a decision which results in negativing a promise or withdrawing an undertaking is taken. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is involved. The doctrine does not give scope to claim relief straightaway from the administrative authorities as no crystallized right as such is involved. The protection of such legitimate expectation does not require the fulfillment of the expectation where an overriding public interest requires otherwise. In other words where a person's legitimate expectation is not fulfilled by taking a particular decision then decision-maker should justify the denial of such expectation by showing some overriding public interest. Therefore even if substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated that does not grant an absolute right to a particular person. It simply ensures the circumstances in which that expectation may be denied or restricted. A case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its powers to fulfil. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits. But as discussed above a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has locus standi to make such a claim. In considering the same several factors which give rise to such legitimate expectation must be present. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. If it is a question of policy, even by way of change of old policy, the courts cannot interfere with a decision. In a given case whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to a legitimate expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact. If these tests are satisfied and if the court is satisfied that a case of legitimate expectation is made out then the next question would be whether failure to give an opportunity of hearing before the decision affecting such legitimate expectation is taken, has resulted in failure of justice and whether on that ground the decision should be quashed. If that be so then what should be the relief is again a matter which depends on several factors." (emphasis supplied). 18. In Punjab Communication Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (4) SCC 727 , this Court observed : (SCC pp. 72930) "The principle of legitimate expectation is still at a stage of evolution. If that be so then what should be the relief is again a matter which depends on several factors." (emphasis supplied). 18. In Punjab Communication Ltd. v. Union of India 1999 (4) SCC 727 , this Court observed : (SCC pp. 72930) "The principle of legitimate expectation is still at a stage of evolution. The principle is at the root of the rule of law and requires regularity, predictability and certainty in the Governments dealings with the public The procedural part of it relates to a representation that a hearing or other appropriate procedure will be afforded before the decision is made." "However, the more important aspect is whether the decision maker can sustain the change in policy by resort to Wednesbury principles of rationality or whether the court can go into the question whether the decision-maker has properly balanced the legitimate expectation as against the need for a change.. In sum, this means that the judgment whether public interest overrides the substantive legitimate expectation of individuals will be for the decision-maker who has made the change in the policy. The choice of the policy is for the decision-maker and not for the court. The legitimate substantive expectation merely permits the court to find out if the change in policy which is the cause for defeating the legitimate expectation is irrational or perverse or one which no reasonable person could have made." 19. Recently, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [ 2006 (4) SCC 1 ] referred to the circumstances in which the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked thus : (SCC pp.38-39, para 46) "The doctrine can be invoked if the decisions of the administrative authority affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there have been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn." 20. Another Constitution Bench, referring to the doctrine, observed thus in Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations vs. Union of India: (SCC pp. Another Constitution Bench, referring to the doctrine, observed thus in Confederation of Ex-servicemen Associations vs. Union of India: (SCC pp. 416-17, paras 33 & 35) "33…….No doubt, the doctrine has an important place in the development of Administrative Law and particularly law relating to 'judicial review'. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. In such situation, if a decision is taken by an administrative authority adversely affecting his interests, he may have justifiable grievance in the light of the fact of continuous receipt of the benefit, legitimate expectation to receive the benefit or privilege which he has enjoyed all throughout. Such expectation may arise either from the express promise or from consistent practice which the applicant may reasonably expect to continue." 35. "In such cases, therefore, the Court may not insist an administrative authority to act judicially but may still insist it to act fairly. The doctrine is based on the principle that good administration demands observance of reasonableness and where it has adopted a particular practice for a long time even in absence of a provision of law, it should adhere to such practice without depriving its citizens of the benefit enjoyed or privilege exercised." 17. Recently, in Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Limited and others Vs. P.P. Suresh and others (2019) 9 SCC 710 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs 15 to 20 and 23 to 25, which are being reproduced as under:- “B. Legitimate Expectation 14. ……………………. 15. The principle of legitimate expectation has been recognized by this Court in Union of India v. Hindustand Development Corporation & Ors. If the promise made by an authority is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous, a person can claim that the authority in all fairness should not act contrary to the promise. 16. M. Jagannadha Rao, J. elaborately elucidated on legitimate expectation in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors . He referred (at SCC pp. 741-42, para 27) to the judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions and Ors. 16. M. Jagannadha Rao, J. elaborately elucidated on legitimate expectation in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors . He referred (at SCC pp. 741-42, para 27) to the judgment in Council of Civil Service Unions and Ors. v. Minister for the Civil Service in which Lord Diplock had observed that for a legitimate expectation to arise, the decisions of the administrative authority must affect the person by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which, “ 27…….(i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that they will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that they should not be withdrawn. 17. Rao, J. observed in this case, that the procedural part of legitimate expectation relates to a representation that a hearing or other appropriate procedure will be afforded before the decision is made. The substantive part of the principle is that if a representation is made that a benefit of a substantive nature will be granted or if the person is already in receipt of the benefit, that it will be continued and not be substantially varied, then the same could be enforced. 18. It has been held by R. V. Raveendran, J. in Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar that legitimate expectation is not a legal right. Not being a right, it is not enforceable as such. It may entitle an expectant (SCC p. 391, para 15) “(a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause of denial. In appropriate cases, the Courts may grant a direction requiring the authority to follow the promised procedure or established practice. Substantive Legitimate Expectation 19. An expectation entertained by a person may not be found to be legitimate due to the existence of some countervailing consideration of policy or law. Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances, including changes in the political complexion of governments. The liberty to make such changes is something that is inherent in our constitutional form of government. 20. An expectation entertained by a person may not be found to be legitimate due to the existence of some countervailing consideration of policy or law. Administrative policies may change with changing circumstances, including changes in the political complexion of governments. The liberty to make such changes is something that is inherent in our constitutional form of government. 20. The decision makers’ freedom to change the policy in public interest cannot be fettered by applying the principle of substantive legitimate expectation. So long as the Government does not act in an arbitrary or in an unreasonable manner, the change in policy does not call for interference by judicial review on the ground of a legitimate expectation of an individual or a group of individuals being defeated. 21. ………………….. Procedural Legitimate Expectation 22. ……………….. 23. In case of a complaint that an administrative authority has reneged from a promise without giving an opportunity of hearing which was the past practice, a claim of legitimate expectation can be raised. In other words, if the policy or practice was to give an opportunity before the benefit is withdrawn, the noncompliance of such a practice would result in defeating the legitimate expectation of an individual or group of individuals. In Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu, the Privy Council was concerned with a dispute relating to an assertion of legitimate expectation of hearing, by an illegal immigrant. The Respondent in that case entered Hong Kong illegally and remained for a long period of time without being detected. He became part owner of a factory which employed several workers. A change in immigration policy was announced whereby illegal immigrants would be interviewed in due course, but no guarantee was given that they would not be removed from Hong Kong. The Respondent approached the immigration authorities for interview and after being interviewed he was detained until a removal order was made by the Director of Immigration. His appeal was dismissed by the Immigration Tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong granted the Respondent an order of prohibition till an opportunity was given to him to explain the circumstances of his case before the Director. The Appeal filed by the Attorney General of Hong Kong was dismissed by the Privy Council. His appeal was dismissed by the Immigration Tribunal. The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong granted the Respondent an order of prohibition till an opportunity was given to him to explain the circumstances of his case before the Director. The Appeal filed by the Attorney General of Hong Kong was dismissed by the Privy Council. The only question raised by the Respondent in the Appeal was whether he was entitled to have a fair inquiry under common law, before a removal order was made against him. Without expressing any opinion on violation of principles of natural justice, the right of hearing of the Respondent in the peculiar facts of the case was adjudicated upon. It was held that the Respondent had a ‘legitimate expectation’ of being accorded a hearing before an order of removal was passed. 24. We have referred to the above judgment to demonstrate that there can be situation where the very claim made can be with regard to an opportunity not being given before withdrawing a promise which results in defeating the ‘legitimate expectation’. 25. The principle of procedural legitimate expectation would apply to cases where a promise is made and is withdrawn without affording an opportunity to the person affected. The imminent requirement of fairness in administrative action is to give an opportunity to the person who is deprived of a past benefit. In our opinion, there is an exception to the said rule. If an announcement is made by the Government of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits that were announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons. In other words, in such cases, an opportunity to each individual to explain the circumstances of his case need not be given. In Union of India v. Hindustan Devlopment Corporation and Ors. (supra) it was held that in cases involving an interest based on legitimate expectation, the Court will not interfere on grounds of procedural fairness and natural justice, if the deciding authority has been allotted a full range of choice and the decision is taken fairly and objectively.” 18. In Union of India v. Hindustan Devlopment Corporation and Ors. (supra) it was held that in cases involving an interest based on legitimate expectation, the Court will not interfere on grounds of procedural fairness and natural justice, if the deciding authority has been allotted a full range of choice and the decision is taken fairly and objectively.” 18. In view of the aforesaid, some of the following principles of law on legitimate expectation may be summarized as under:- (1) Legitimate expectation is an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flow from a promise or established practice. The term 'established practice' refers to a regular, consistent predictable and certain conduct, process or activity of the decision-making authority. The expectation should be legitimate, that is, reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts, or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. The expectation cannot be the same as anticipation. It is different from a wish, a desire or a hope, however earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be. (2) A person can be said to have a 'legitimate expectation' of a particular treatment, if any representation or promise is made by an authority, either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular and consistent past practice of the authority gives room for such expectation in the normal course. (3) It is not a legal right and as such a legitimate expectation, even if made, does not entitle the expectant to relief straightaway from the administrative authorities. (4) It is procedural in character based on the requirement of a higher degree of fairness in administrative action, as a consequence of the promise made, or practice established. (5) Legitimate expectation if made may only entitle an expectant : (a) to an opportunity to show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. (6) However, the requirement of fairness in administrative action by giving an opportunity of hearing to the expectant is not in all cases but is where such person is deprived of a past benefit. (6) However, the requirement of fairness in administrative action by giving an opportunity of hearing to the expectant is not in all cases but is where such person is deprived of a past benefit. (7) If some policy is announced conferring benefit on a large number of people but is subsequently withdrawn or changed due to overriding public interest, an opportunity to each individual to explain the circumstances of his case need not be given. (8) Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any other valid or bonafide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the legitimate expectation, even if made out. (9) So long as the Government does not act in an arbitrary or in an unreasonable manner interference by judicial review on the ground of legitimate expectation is not called for. The Court will not interfere on grounds of procedural fairness and natural justice, if the deciding authority has been allotted a full range of choice and the decision is taken fairly and objectively. (10) A person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus he has locus standi to make such a claim. The decision taken by the authority must be found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. (11) Whether there are such facts and circumstances giving rise to a legitimate expectation, it would primarily be a question of fact in each case. 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles on legitimate expectation, we now proceed to consider the petitioner’s case to determine if the petitioner can be said to have legitimate expectation. 20. The only ground on which the petitioner claims legitimate expectation is that he entered into a lease agreement for 20 years on rent/premium with a private person pursuant to the Corporation’s letter dated 04.09.2019 asking him to offer suitable land, and if such a letter had not been given, he would not have entered into the lease agreement. 21. So far as the offering of land by the applicant for Retail Outlet dealership is concerned, the Brochure provided that all the applicants meeting the eligibility criteria will qualify for further selection process. Clause 4 of the Brochure provided for the eligibility criteria for individual applicants-proprietorship/partnership. Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 4 deals with the land (applicable to all categories). 21. So far as the offering of land by the applicant for Retail Outlet dealership is concerned, the Brochure provided that all the applicants meeting the eligibility criteria will qualify for further selection process. Clause 4 of the Brochure provided for the eligibility criteria for individual applicants-proprietorship/partnership. Sub-Clause (v) of Clause 4 deals with the land (applicable to all categories). It provides that the applicants would be classified into three groups based on the land offered or land not offered by them in the application form. The applicants having suitable piece of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the Corporation were classified in Group 1. The applicants having Firm Offer for a suitable piece of land for purchase or long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the Corporation were classified in Group 2 and the applicants who had not offered the land were classified in Group 3. The applicants in Group 3 would be processed/advised to offer land, only in case no eligible applicant is found or no applicant gets selected under Group 1 and 2. The applicants under Group 3, who did not offer land along with application, would be advised by the Corporation to provide suitable land in the advertised location/stretch within a period of three months from the date of issuance of intimation letter to them and in case, such applicant fails to provide suitable land within the prescribed period or the land provided is found not meeting the satisfied criteria, the application would be rejected. 22. These provisions of the Brochure make it clear that mere offer of land to the Corporation by the applicant may be in Group 1, Group 2 or Group 3 does not give rise to any legitimate expectation to get the dealership of the Retail Outlet as the offered land must be a suitable land confirming to the laid down/ specified criteria and also satisfying other conditions with respect to offering of land as mentioned in the Brochure, under which the company reserved the right to cancel/withdraw the advertisement, at it is sole discretion. So it cannot be said that any such promise was made as alleged for grant of the dealership of Retail Outlet, if the petitioner provided any land. So it cannot be said that any such promise was made as alleged for grant of the dealership of Retail Outlet, if the petitioner provided any land. The expectation of the petitioner, in view of the letter of intimation issued to him for offering the land, that if he offers the land after entering into lease agreement, he would get the dealership, cannot be a reasonable or a logical expectation flowing from any promise made or established practice that the applicant offering the land would necessarily be granted the dealership. 23. As aforesaid the law is settled that a legitimate expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a relief. Besides, public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant any other valid or bona fide reason given by the decision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the legitimate expectation. As a ground for relief, the efficacy of this doctrine of legitimate expectation is weak one. The decision maker has to justify the public interest or any other valid or bona fide reason. 24. We find that the Corporation has given valid and bona fide reasons for cancelling the subject location i.e. wrong description and publication of the name of district in the advertisement. The error in the advertisement with respect to the subject location, contravenes the principles of fairness and transparency in the matter of grant of dealership of the Retail Outlet. 25. In view of the aforesaid, we are not convinced with the submission of Mr. Sharad Pathak that the error in publication of the district name could not be corrected after two and half years of the publication. It could not be shown to us that in the mean time the petitioner acquired any indefeasible right by lapse of time and particularly when the petitioner had yet not been selected and the Indian Oil Corporation under the Brochure reserved the right to cancel/withdraw/amend the advertisement at its sole discretion, which right of the Corporation has neither been disputed nor challenged. 26. We are of the further considered view that the Corporation cannot be directed to proceed for the subject location in pursuance of the advertisement, it being erroneous, which gives incorrect information about the subject location. 27. We do not find any illegality in the orders under challenge. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.