According to the order-sheet dated 21st November, 2008 initially this case was dismissed on the ground that the counsel for the petitioner was hopelessly ill-prepared. He had failed to make out any valid or legal case in favour of the petitioner. However, with the consent of both the counsel, it was decided that the matter should be listed in the category of ‘to be mentioned’ on 1 December, 2008. Today this case is being decided on merits with the consent of both the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the letter dated 2nd of July, 2005 whereby he has been informed that the letter of intent granted by the respondents has been cancelled.
The Brief facts of the case are that 01.01.2002, the respondents had issued an advertisement for grant of retail outlet within the municipal limits of Indergarh, Bundi. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner had submitted an application dated 28.01.2004 Subsequently, he was called for interview so as to assess his merit from amongst other candidates. At the time of submission of the application, the petitioner had offered land in Khasra Nos. 118, 119 & 133. But at the time of interview, it was revealed that the said land is under dispute. Thus, it could not be leased out for the purpose of establishing a retail outlet. Hence, to have clear title of the land, the petitioner had submitted papers of alternative land in Khasra No. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner was assured about the grant of Letter of Intent (‘LOI’ for short) to him. Thereafter, on 20.07.2004, the respondents did issue LOI to the petitioner. After receipt of LOI, the petitioner had received another communication from the respondents. The said correspondence indicated that a dispute does exist about title of the land offered for establishing retail outlet, i.e in Khasra Nos. 118 & 119 etc. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the respondents calling upon him to submit offer for alternate land within a specified period failing which the petitioner was threatened for withdrawal of his letter of intent. The petitioner immediately submitted a reply to the said letter. He drew the attention of the respondents to the fact that he had already offered an alternative land in Khasra No. 5 situated on Main Uniara-Tonk-Sawai Madhopur-Dausa Road. In fact, the said land is the best available alternative land fulfilling the requirements of the respondents. However, surprisingly, vide letter dated 02.07.2005, the respondents informed the petitioner that the LOI is cancelled. Hence, this petition before this Court.
Mr. Manoj Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions: firstly, in the impugned letter dated 02.07.2005, no cogent reason has been given by the respondents for cancelling the letter of intent dated 20.07.2004 Merely, a bald statement has been made that “the petitioner has not met the conditions of the advertisement dated 01.01.2004”. Secondly, prior to issuance of this letter, no show-cause notice was issued to him informing him about the intention of the Company to cancel the said LOI. Thirdly, he had offered land in Khasra No. 5 which is situated on the Main Uniara-Tonk-Sawai Madhopur-Dausa Road. According to the petitioner, the said land fulfills all the conditions of the advertisement. Therefore, it was for the respondents to point out as to which condition, the petitioner has not been able to meet. The lapses should have been indicated prior to cancelling the L.O.I
On the other hand, Mr. S. Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the respondent-Company, has contended that since the petitioner did not meet the conditions of the advertisement, the Company was justified in cancelling the L.O.I He has frankly conceded the fact that prior to passing of the impugned letter, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by the Company. But nonetheless, he has supported the impugned letter.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned letter.
The relationship between the State and the people is a sacred one; it is created and bound, prescribed and proscribed by the Constitution of India. The Constitution is a document that “We the people” have given to ourselves which contains our dreams and expectations for an ideal State. The ideal State is to grow and prosper till eternity. The very Preamble of the Constitution contains the vision of our dreams and expectations. The Preamble speaks not only about the equality before the law, but also speaks of economic justice. The elements contained in the Preamble are further expanded and elaborated upon in Parts III and IV of the Constitution of India. Part III, containing the fundamental rights, is the heart of the constitution. For, while Part III bestows inalienable rights on the people, it cribs, cabins and confines the power of the State. It defines and circumscribes the power of the State. Therefore, it is like a clearing in the rain forest of the State power. Since the limits have been defined by the Constitution, they are, in jurisprudential term, “the grundnorm”. The State can never overstep the jurisdiction prescribed by the Constitution. If the State were to overstep the limits, then the State acts unjustly and unfairly, unreasonably and unconstitutionally.
It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that before an adverse order can be passed affecting the civil rights of a person, the person has to be given a right of hearing. The said principle is a part of the principles of natural justice. In catena of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the principles of natural justice not only apply to quasi-Judicial functions, but also apply to administrative decisions. Moreover, in the case of Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India [(2007) 1 SCC 331] the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed “If upon giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected employee, it is possible to arrive at a different finding, the principles of natural justice must be complied with.” This principle is equally applicable to the present case. In case, the petitioner were duly informed that even the land offered in Khasra No. 5 is not satisfying some of the conditions of the advertisement, and in case, an opportunity of hearing were given to the petitioner, it is possible that a different decision could have been arrived at. Therefore, it was imperative for the respondents to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner prior to cancelling his L.O.I
In the fact and circumstances of the present case, this petition is hereby, allowed and the letter dated 2 July, 2005 is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The respondent Company is directed to issue notice to the petitioner within a period of one month pointing out the specific condition of the advertisement which the petitioner has not been able to meet, granting him time to meet the said condition and to decide his case after passing a reasoned order within a period of three months. There shall be no order as to costs.