IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3278 of 2005 Surendra Prasad Yadav, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Ramashish Rai, R/o Village-Mahmood Chak, P.S.-Naya Gaon, District-Saran. ……… Petitioner. Versus 1. The India Oil Corporation Ltd. through its General Manager, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chauraha, Frazer Road, Patna. 2. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Area Office, Exhibition Road, Sahi Bhawan, Patna. 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(MD) Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chauraha, Frazer Road, Patna. 4. Smt. Neelam Prasad, W/o Jitendra Prasad Sah, 22 Montessary School Lane, Boring Road, Patna. …… Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. V.Nath with Mr. Md. Waliur Rahman, Advocates. For the respondent nos. 2 & 3: Mr. K.D. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate. For Respondent no. 4: Mr. Manan Kr. Mishra, Sr. Advocate. With Mr. Awanish Kr. Pandey, Advocate. ----------- 8. 29.03.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents Indian Oil Corporation and learned counsel for Respondent No. 4. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging Letter of Intent dated 02.09.2004 (Annexure-1) issued by the Indian Oil Corporation for L.P.G. Distributorship for village Dighwara in the District of Saran. 3. It is not in dispute that in the year 2003 an advertisement was issued and several applications were filed by several applicants and after considering the criteria, respondent no. 4 was placed at the top of the panel whereas the petitioner was placed at the second place. The petitioner objected to the said panel and filed applications dated 2 20.11.2003 and 17.12.2003 (Annexure-5 series) before respondent- authorities stating that the income of the family of respondent no. 4 was more than Rs. two lakhs and hence, she was not entitled to be given the distributorship as is clear from Clause 2(e) of the Advertisement (Annexure-2) as well as Clause 6 of the Eligibility Criteria (Annexure-6) of respondent-Corporation. Thereafter the respondent- Corporation issued the impugned Letter of Intent dated 02.09.2004 (Annexure-1) in favour of respondent no. 4, which has been challenged in the instant writ petition filed on 11.03.2005. It may be noted that since then this petition is pending without any interim order and respondent no. 4 is continuing with her work of distributorship since 02.09.2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the certificate of a Chartered Accountant dated 22.02.2010 (Annexure-8 series), which shows that the income of the family of respondent no. 4 including interest for the relevant period was Rs. 64,675.20 whereas the income of her husband including interests and salary was Rs. 1,38,407.34 and hence he claims that total income of the family of respondent no. 4 was Rs. 2,03,082.63 which was above Rs. two lakhs and as such she was not entitled to be granted the said distributorship, but without considering the said facts and petitioner’s applications the respondent issued Letter of Intent in her favour. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents lays stress upon the certificate of another Chartered Accountant dated 19.12.2003 (Annexure-1 series to the counter affidavit) in which it had 3 been stated that for the relevant period the total income of respondent no. 4 and her husband came to Rs. 1,97,848.00 which was much less than Rs. two lakhs and hence, respondent no. 4 was quite eligible for the said distributorship and the respondent-Corporation was fully justified in issuing the impugned letter of intent in her favour. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite apparent that the arrears of salary for April 1997 to December, 1999 amounting to Rs. 20,276/- was paid to the husband of respondent no. 4 during the financial year 1999-2000 so the said arrears of salary were not for the financial year 1999-2000 rather they were for three years and hence the entire arrears could not have legally been included in the gross salary of her husband for the relevant year. This has not been accounted for by the petitioner. If the said amount is deducted the income of the family of respondent no. 4 for the relevant period becomes much reduced i.e. below Rs. two lakhs per year. 7. Thus, the distributorship and Letter of Intent were rightly granted by the authorities of the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of respondent no. 4. This writ petition appears to be absolutely frivolous and is accordingly dismissed. Sujit ( S.N.Hussain, J. )