IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17434 of 2010 Manju Kiran wife of Ajit Kumar Singh, resident of Taraiya, P.O. & P.S. Taraiya, District-Saran. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800 001 through its General Manager. 2. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow chowk, Patna-800 001. 3. Senior Manager (Operations), Bihar State Office, 5th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow chowk, Patna-800 001. 4. Senior Divisional Manager Retail Sales, Muzaffarpur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Krishna Complex, Akharaghat Road, Muzaffarpur, Bihar. 5. The Circle Officer, Taraiya, Block Taraiya, P.O.& P.S. Taraiya District-Saran, Bihar. 6. Smt. Pushpa Rathour wife of Sri Anil Singh Rathour, resident of village-Tedha, P.S. Esuapur, District-Saran. 7. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. ……Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Senior Advocate. For respondent no.6 : M/s. Sheo Nandan Prasad Singh, Ashok Kumar & Surendra Prasad Singh, Advocates. 07/ 10.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and its authorities as well as learned counsel for respondent no.6 and also learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 27.09.2010 (annexure-9) by which the Senior Divisional Manager Retail Sales, Muzaffarpur Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Muzaffarpur (respondent no.4) - 2 - rejected the petition of the petitioner with respect to selection of respondent no.6 as retail outlet dealer for the advertised location, i.e. within 2 K.M. from Taraiya Chowk in the district of Saran and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that as per the advertisement published at the instance of Indian Oil Corporation on 24.08.2009 (Annexure-1) a land of 45 m x 45 m was required for the said purpose. He further submits that according to calculation of Anchal Adhikari Taraiya, the area of land measuring 45 m x 45 m would come to 13 katha, 12 dhur and 5 dhurki but letter dated 17.08.2010 (Annexure-6) issued by the Senior Manager (Operations) of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited as well as letter dated 28.08.2010 (Annexure-7) issued by the Circle Officer Taraiya (Saran) shows that measurement of the land was 11 katha 6 dhurs only, which respondent no.6, who had been selected, had offered for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner also avers that the land of respondent no.6 did not fulfill the requirement as per the advertisement and thus he was wrongly selected. He further submits that respondent no.6 having failed to comply the said requirement the second person in the selection list, namely the petitioner, should have been selected in his place. 4. It is not in dispute that the plot owned by respondent no.6 is a larger plot measuring over 1 bigha of land out of which he offered 45 m x 45 m of square land for the purposes of the - 3 - advertisement and the authorities have measured and marked 45 m x 45 m land out of the said plot which is apparent from the letter of the Anchal Adhikari dated 18.10.2010 (Annexure-6/A). In the said circumstances, respondent-Corporation was rightly satisfied that the requirement of land had been duly fulfilled by respondent no.6. 5. So far the measurement of kathas etc. is concerned it varies from place to place and for arriving at the exact measurement a square area of land measuring 45m on all sides was the requirement which had been duly offered by respondent no.6 and accepted by the Corporation. 6. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)