CWP No. 516 of 2006. 4.6.2008 Present: Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.4. The petitioner has challenged the dealership of respondent No.4. According to the policy of 2003, even the ad hoc dealership of respondent No.4 has come to an end in the month of June. According to the policy, since respondent No.4 has already completed two years, he is not eligible to get the same. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the authorities concerned cannot continue with the ad hocism. Therefore, we direct the authorities of respondents No. 1 to 3 to make honest efforts to allot the out-let on permanent basis. As far as the COCO operation is concerned, it can be done by the Company itself. We do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned orders. In the light of the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (Jagdish Bhalla) Chief Justice. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. June 4, 2008. (cr)