Letters Patent Appeal No.998 OF 2002 Against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2002 passed by a Single Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8331 and 9237 of 2002. 1. M/S SANGEETA INDANE, INDANE DISTRIBUTOR, HATHKHOLA ROAD, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, P.O. AND P.S. SUPAUL, DISTIRCT SUPAUL, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SANGEETA SINGH, W/O SRI ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH, V.I.P. ROAD, PURAB BAZAR, SAHARSA, DISTIRCT SAHARSA. 2. M/S SANGEETA INDANE, INDANE DISTRIBUTOR, V.I.P. ROAD, PURAB BAZAR, SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA, THROUGH ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SANGEETA SINGH, W/O SRI ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH, V.I.P. ROAD, PURAB BAZAR, SAHARSA, DISTRICT SAHARSA. 3. SANGEETA SINGH, W/O SRI ASHWINI KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIRATPUR, CHANDRA NIWAS, KAYASTH TOLA, P.S. SONBARSA RAJ, DISTRICT SAHARSA. ….. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS. Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER BIHAR OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BANGLOW CHOWK, PATNA. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, BIHAR OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAIPRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BANGLOW CHOWK, PATNA – 800 001. …. RESPONENTS/RESPONDENTS. For the Appellants : - Sri Anil Kumar Upadhayay, Advocate. For the Respondents : - Sri Kali Das Chatterjee, Advocate. Sri Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA Shiva Kirti Singh & Dharnidhar Jha, J.J. Heard the parties in respect of L.P.A. No. 998 of 2002 through which the appellant/ writ petitioner has challenged the order of the Writ Court dated 16.8.2002 - 2 - passed in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8331 and 9237 of 2002. 2. The Writ Court has noticed all the relevant facts leading to cancellation of L.P.G. gas distributorship of the appellant by order of the Corporation dated 16.7.2002. That order was Annexure – 1 to C.W.J.C. No. 8331 of 2002. On the basis of facts which were not in controversy the Writ Court came to the conclusion that the distributorship was obtained by the husband of the present appellant in the year 1985 by concealing certain material facts which show that the licence was issued on account of suppression of vital facts although he was not competent and qualified to get the licence of distributorship. 3. It is not in dispute that after cancellation of the licence in question the Corporation issued fresh advertisement for grant of licence for L.P.G. gas distributorship at the concerned place and the appellant/writ petitioner has also opted to apply and has participated in the selection process. In view of all the aforesaid facts, we find no good ground to interfere with the order dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Writ Court to the extent it has found no ground to interfere with cancellation of licence of the writ petitioner. - 3 - However, on behalf of the appellant it was submitted by learned counsel that the order contained in Annexure-1 dated 16.7.2002 dealt with another matter also inasmuch as after canceling the licence on the ground noticed above, the writ petitioner/appellant was called upon to settle the accounts and pay all the dues and claims of the Corporation. It has been submitted that such a direction by the Corporation may lead to a situation of dispute between the parties over settlement of account and therefore, it be observed that if there be any difference between the parties on account of accounts and payment of dues and claims of the Corporation, the writ petitioner/appellant may have liberty to raise her grievances before the Corporation and if advised, to opt for arbitration or any other forum to seek redressal in accordance with law. 4. In respect of aforesaid limited submission, we find no difficulty to observe that if the appellant/writ petitioner is dissatisfied with demands or orders of the Corporation for settlement of accounts or payment of dues and claims of the Corporation then the matter may be taken to a arbitrator or any other authority competent to decide - 4 - such dispute in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if such dispute or claim is pending with the Corporation then the same may be decided by the Corporation without any delay. 5. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this letters patent appeal stands disposed of. PATNA HIGH COURT THE 4TH OF MAY, 2009. DKS/NAFR (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)