HIGH COURT OF JUDIQATURE CHHATTISGARH :: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WRIT PETITION No. 58$8 OF 2005 Suresh Dagla, S/o. Shri S.L.Dagla, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Lailunga, Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) PETITIONER Versus ENTS 1. Union of India. Through Secretary, RESPOND I (Passed on 9‘“ December 2005) The petitioner is owning a retail outlet in Lailunga having obtained dealership since 1995-96. In this writ petition he is questioning the validity of advertisement issued by the respondent No.2 and 3 calling for applications for appointment of dealers for retail outlet at Lailunga. lt is contended that in terms of the policy owned by ‘ \ W. . “a” Ministry of Petroleum, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Through iis Territory Manager (Retail). POL. Depot. Bhilai Nagar, G,E.Road, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited.Through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Second Floor, Medina Manzil, Medical College Road. Raipur (C.G.) Present : Mr. V.R.Tiwari. learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Gautam Bhaduri, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 1& 2. Mr. Bhisma Kinger learned Standing counsel for respondent No.3. I . ORAL ORDER the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited as miiected in its dgcument , marked as Annexure P-1 dated 28.04.2005, the location of the new outlet should not be allowed to be opened within 1O kms. of the existing outlet and according to the petitioner, the proposed location falls within 10 kms. from the outlet owned by him. So alleging, the petitioner has souht intervention of the Court. (2). At the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of the Couit that respondent 2 & 3 have not yet allotted the deaiership and in that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submitted that his client would make appropriate representation to respondents 2 & 3 with regard tohis complaint and respondents 2 & 3 be directed to consider the same before granting dealership to any person as proposed in the impugned notification. In that View of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition directing resporidents 2 and 3 to consider the representation of the petitioner, if the same is tiled before them within ten days from today, before granting dealership of the outiets proposed in the impugned notification. There shall be no order as to costs.