IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 2859 of 2009 Date of decision: 09.08.2010 _________________________________________________________ Anjali Nanda … Petitioner Versus Indian Oil Coporation & Others … Respondents. _________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate For respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Advocate For the respondent No.5 : Mr. K.S. Banyal, Advocate. _________________________________________________________ Justice Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the allotment of retail outlet under Kisan Seva Kindra at Hathol to respondent No.5 be quashed and set aside and the merit list Annexure-P- 5 vide which the respondent No.5 was declared to be the selected candidate, be also set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1, Indian Oil Corporation issued an advertisement inviting applications for setting up retail outlet as Kisan Seva Kendra in various places. The petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for the grant of the retail outlet. Respondent No.5 was selected. His selection was challenged by the petitioner Smt. Anjali Nanda on various grounds. 3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents. Respondent No.5 alongwith his reply to the stay application CMP No. 5503 of 2009, filed a copy of the lease deed dated 19.05.2010, whereby the petitioner Smt. Anjali Nanda has leased out the land on which she proposed to set up the retail outlet in favour of her sister-in-Law Smt. Upama Nanda. It is, thus, apparent that now the petitioner has no land -2- on which to set up the retail outlet. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous. 4. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate has filed rejoinder alongwith which, affidavit of Smt. Upama Nanda has been annexed. In this affidavit. Smt. Upama Nanda has stated that in case the retail outlet in the present case is granted to Smt. Anjali Nanda, she (Upama Nanda) shall hand over the possession of the land to Smt. Anjali Nanda. This cannot be permitted. While applying for another retail outlet of some other company, Smt. Upama Nanda has proposed this very land for setting up the outlet. The same land cannot be made subject matter of separate applications by separate persons. The petitioner after filing of the writ petition with open eyes has handed over the possession of land to her sister-in-Law. As such, she is not entitled to any relief in this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Deepak Gupta), J. August 9, 2010 Pritam