A person A was selected for grant of petroleum retail outlet. Before letter of intent could be issued by the petroleum company, he was dragged into litigiation in the high court intiated by an unsuccessful candidate B. The high court during the proceedings of that case clarified that there is no stay order granted by it and petroleum company is free to proceed i.e free to move ahead with the formalities of appointing A as dealer. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed and even after that for 5-6 months A was not appointed as dealer. After about 5-6 months of dismissal of writ petition, the petroleum company took a u turn and is saying now the policy has changed and therefore A is not eligible for appointment as dealer. The petroleum company is contending that A did not have a legitimate expectation of being granted dealership and it is only on the date of taking decision that the state of affairs as existing on that day are required to be considered. My query is , whether the theory of legitimate expectation can be relied upon by the petroleum company in the face of arbitraryness and unreasonableness in their action as without any reasons, the company did not appoint A as dealer for good 6 months before change in policy..
