JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein bearing Ref. No.CBRO/BCT/RET dt. 15.10.2014 and quash the same.) 1. This writ petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 15.10.2014, whereby the respondent Corporation withdrew the letter of intent dated 11.09.2013, issued in favour of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation called for applications from interested persons for grant of retail outlet dealership. The petitioner applied for the same. The petitioner had entered into a registered lease agreement dated 10.11.2011 with the 3rd respondent with respect to the property at Survey No.258/9a at Veeraganur Village, Salem District, Measuring an extent of 1.58 acres. The lease was for a period of 30 years. Thus, the petitioner claims that she was qualified and participated in the selection process under the land owner category since such a presumption is available where the registered lease is for a period of more than 15 years. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent Corporation called her for an interview on 31.03.20212 and ultimately, the petitioner was found suitable and eligible and a letter of intent was issued in favour of the petitioner on 11.09.2013 for running a retail outlet. 4. There was some dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and suits were filed by both the patties and it was pending. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent straightaway issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.10.2014 and withdrew the letter of intent. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court. 5. The 1st and 2nd respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The relevant portion in the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: 5.At the outset before traversing the allegations in the affidavit I state and submit as follows; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (herein after referred as to Corporation) issued an advertisement on 16.09.2011 inviting applications from interested parties for appointment as Retail outlet dealers in various parts of Tamil nadu. Veeraganur in Salem District was one of the locations. The Corporation received two applications. One Application was found ineligible. The lone candidate the Petitioner herein, was empanelled after due process of Interview held on 31.03.2012. Veeraganur in Salem District was one of the locations. The Corporation received two applications. One Application was found ineligible. The lone candidate the Petitioner herein, was empanelled after due process of Interview held on 31.03.2012. Along with the application, the candidate Petitioner (Mrs. M.Vijaya) submitted a copy of lease agreement No. 2750/2011 executed by Saraswathy and G. Selvi as a proof of land offered to the Corporation for developing Retail outlet. The Lease was for 30 years with Clause for sub-leasing the same to the Corporation. After completing all formalities as per Dealer Selection Guideline Letter of Intent was issued to her on 10.09.2012. The Corporation submitted an application for NOC to the District Authority. Subsequently Mrs. V.Saraswathy, the 3rd Respondent sent a communication to the Corporation stating that the Petitioner Mrs. M. Vijaya has not paid rents to her and the balance amount towards the advance and that she has also filed O.S.No.39 of 2013 along with Ms. Selvi and her minor children for recovery of Rental Arrears and for a permanent Injunction from restraining the defendants in the suit (Petitioner herein in W.P. and the Corporation also) from interfering with her possession and also to restrain District Collector (3rd Defendant in the suit from issuing NOC to the Corporation). In the meanwhile the petitioner herein (Mrs.M.Vijaya) filed O.S.No.44 of 2013 before District Munsif Court, Athur against 1) Saraswathy, 2) Selvi and another for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending O.S.No.44 of 2013, Petitioner herein filed I.A.No. 125 of 2013 for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said application was allowed on 16.12.2013. Aggrieved by the said order Ms.Selvi and another filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2014 and sought interim stay of the order dated 16.12.2013 in I.A.No.125 of 2013 in O.S.No.44 of 2013 pending disposal of C.M.A. however no interim order has been granted. The dispute between the Landlord and the Petitioner was never brought to the knowledge of the Corporation till the same was informed by the Landlord Mrs. V Saraswathy. Further a Contempt Petition 526 of 2014 has also been filed by Mrs. V. Saraswathy against the then Regional Manager of the Respondent Corporation and the same is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. V Saraswathy. Further a Contempt Petition 526 of 2014 has also been filed by Mrs. V. Saraswathy against the then Regional Manager of the Respondent Corporation and the same is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Challenging the order of withdrawing the Letter of Intent granted in her favour, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the Corporation requested the petitioner several times to produce all the original documents pertaining to the land offered for developing the Retail outlet for verification to finalize the Lease Agreement. But she failed to produce the original documents for verification. In the absence of verification of original documents, the corporation was left with no other alternative but to withdraw the Let of Intent in her favour. In this connection, I crave leave to refer to the letters addressed by the corporation dated 25.07.2014 and 30.09.201 he Petitioner. 6. Heard Mr.H.Rajasekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.Vijayan, learned counsel for R1, R2 and Mr.K.Soundara Rajan, learned counsel for R3. 7. The main ground on which the petitioner had applied for dealerships was that she had a 30 years lease with the 3rd respondent. However, there was a serious dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and multiple suits were filed and interim orders were passed. As a result, the petitioner was not even in a position to start the business. Ultimately, the Corporation must be benefited by issuing the letter of intent and they must earn revenue. The Corporation cannot be dragged into unnecessary litigations between the parties and the Corporation cannot wait till the dispute reaches its logical end before the Civil Court between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. These are cases involving generation of revenue and the Corporation has to necessarily take action to ensure that the retail outlets are being run by the person to whom the dealership is given and in the absence of the same, Corporation has to necessarily take action. 8. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the Corporation since the dispute between he petitioner and the 3rd respondent before the Civil Court was going on endlessly and the Corporation was unnecessarily dragged into this dispute. Hence, there is no illegality in the withdrawal of the letter of intent by the 2nd respondent. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the Corporation since the dispute between he petitioner and the 3rd respondent before the Civil Court was going on endlessly and the Corporation was unnecessarily dragged into this dispute. Hence, there is no illegality in the withdrawal of the letter of intent by the 2nd respondent. This Court does not find any merits in this writ petition. 9. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.