IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.769 of 2006 Smt.Kalawati Devi wife of Sri Rajendra Rai, resident of village Dostiya, P.O. Barwa, P.S. Lakhaura (Motihari), Distt. East Champaran Bihar)at present E-103,Daroga Prasad Rai Path,Patna-1…Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, East Champaran. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Distribution Department) through Sr. Divisional Retail Sales Manager office at 3A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna-1. 3. Raj Kumar Yadav son of Ramashray Prasad Yadav, resident of Kharajkhiya, P.S.+Anchal Ghorasahan, Distt. East Champaran..........................................................Respondents. ---------------------------------- 04/ 29.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: A. For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus: (i) Quashing the rejection order dated 24.11.2005 passed by respondent no.2(Anx-4). (ii)Directing respondent no.2 to cancel the allotment of dealership to respondent no.3 and consider the case of the petitioner for the same. B. Any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found entitled. 3. It is an admitted fact that the dealership in question has already been allotted to respondent no.3 more than five and half yeas back after rejection of the petitioner’s claim on 24.11.2005. It is also not in dispute that the said respondent no.3 is continuing with the said dealership since then and no interim order has been passed by this court in the instant matter. - 2 - 4. It is also apparent from pleadings and materials that the claim of the petitioner was rejected due to defective affidavit and the grievance of the petitioner is that she was not given opportunity to file a corrected affidavit which she filed later on. It is quite apparent from the materials that it was the duty of the petitioner to file all the relevant documents along with the application and if any such document was not fulfilled, the application had to be rejected by the respondent which has been done in the instant case. Hence, the impugned order passed by the authority is legal and proper and there was no occasion for granting any opportunity to the petitioner for correcting her affidavit. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)