i’ION’ELE Mr. JiiSTiCE SGML KUM R SiNi‘iA & 313.” HQN’BLE Mr. JU$T5CE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA HIGH COURT OF CHHIR?TISGA%H AT EiLiX$PUR Amaaranse : iv‘ir“ HB. Agarwai Senior Advocate with Mrs. Meera Jeiewai. Couneei for the appeiiant, \Mrs. Fouzia Niirza Assistanr Soi’iciior Generai for resoondent No.3/Union of iodia‘ I WRIT 1&W’5EIA‘L Ni?) WW??? 1 §ENCH3 1361', 2W6 I API‘jEAL UNEER SECTIGN 2 CLAUSE (“i3 0i: THE SHHAT?§$@ARH HIGH COURT {APPEékL 'i’O Qi‘Ji$i0N APPELLAN‘?‘ Minesh ’Tamrakar‘ $[o Iate Ram Prasad Tamrakar, aged about 41 years, Rio Ward M16“ Viilage Garadai Pandariya, Tahsii Chhuikhgdan, D§strm Rajnandgaon (Chhai’cisgarh) Versus RESPGNEJ‘‘ENT‘S 1 Hindusian Peir’oieum Corporation Ltd. (A Government of india Enierprise) Through Managing Drrector, Regd. Office 1“!“ Jamshedji Tara Road. Mumbai 400 920 2 Hindusian Petroleum Corporatiorr Lid. Through Senior Regiono: Menager, LPG‘ Bottling Piant, Mandir Haeaud‘r Raipur (Ch'haitisgarh) 4921 01 Union of india through the Secretary, Petroieum Depariment Sansad Bhavan, Sanead Merg, New Deihi }Ix \CN WRIT £?PEA§_ NO.399IZM1 {$Ri3i. GQUER (3Q.Q$.291 1) The foiiowing order of the Couri was passed by $unii Kumaa' Sinha. J. Heard on LA. Nam/20H, an appiication for condonatron of deray in fiiing the appeal. The appeai is barred by 196 days of limitation. Mr. H.B. Agarwai, learned Senior Advocaie appearing on behalf of the appeiiant, submits that since a Review Petition was fiied against the first order dated 29.10.2Q10, the appeal couio‘ not be fiied in time. On due consideration of the submissions made by iearned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the application filed for condonatien of deiay. the same is aiiowed and the delay in tiling the appeal is hereby condoned. Heard on admission: it appears that an Advertisement dated 19.10.20t39 (Annexure P/i in the writ petition) was published for appointment of Dealers under Rain! Gandhi Rurai LPG Distribution Scheme. The appellant/petitioner made an application for grant oi deaiership at viiiage Gandai, District Durg. The application of the appeiiant was rejected by order dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure P/153 in the writ petition). The appellant filed writ petition tor quashing of the rejection order dated 23.08.2010, Subsequently, learned counsel appearing on behalf ‘ot‘ respondents 1& 2 submitted before the Writ Court that the Advertisement dated 1910.23UQ. in which the application of the appellant was rejected, has been withdrawn. The Writ Court observing that nothing survives thereafter tor adjudicating in the matter, as a fresh Advertisement has been issued and the appeliant is at liberty to make a fresh application for the same, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 293i 0.201 O, holding it to be intructuous. i l ‘ WW“? I%P&E_ELMNO.3§QQ0 i 1 The appenant, thereafter, filed Review Petition No‘38/201 1. The Review Petition was aiso dismissed by the Writ Court vide order dated 13.06.2Qi1, holding that in the facts and circumstances oi the case, when eariier Advertisement was admittedly withdrawn, review of the order dated 29.10.2010 was not necessary‘ The Writ Court further , observed that subsequent Advertisement was not challenged in W.P.(C) No. 5494/2010 and the facts, as stated in the order sought to be reviewed, are also not disputed. Mr. Agarwat submits that even after withdrawal of the earlier Advertisement. the validity of rejection of the application of the appeiiant would have been examined by the 0n due consideration oi the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the circumstance that the eariier Advertisement dated 19.10.2009 itseif has been > withdrawn, we do not find any force in the arguments of Mr. Agarvval. For the foregoing reasons, there does not appear to be any infirmity in the above orders passed by the Writ Court, The Writ Appeai, therefore, is iiabie~to be dismissed and Writ Court. shyna is hereby dismissed summariiy. \ W 7 7 \“ ~~R\\ scu— x“ H iSlygil Kumar Sinha r Sd/~ ‘ 1i Judge ‘ ‘ Radhe Shyam Sharma Judge