IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.107 of 2010 ---- Gorakh Nath Tiwary, son of Kapilmuni Tiwary, Resident of Village-Khaira Bhudhar, P.S.-Bikramganj in the district of Rohtas. -- Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, New Delhi, Govt. of India. 2. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through the Senior Divisional Retails Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Patna Divisional Office, Block-A, Mourya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 3. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, State Office, Block-A, Mourya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 4. Senior Divisional Retails Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Block-A, Mourya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. ` -- Respondents. ----- For the appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar with Mr. Navin Sharma, Advocates. For respondent No. 2: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha with Mr. Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates . ----- 02. 21/01/2010 I.A.No.481 of 2010 This is an application for condonation of delay of 33 days. 2. We have heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, the Corporation. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, - 2 - we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause does exist for condonation of delay and, accordingly, the delay in the filing of appeal is condoned. 4. Interlocutory application stands disposed of. L.P.A.No.107 of 2010 5. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. 6. Admit. 7. On consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. 8. The legal propriety of the order dated 04.11.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC no.18462 of 2008 is called in question in this intra -court appeal. 9. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is evident that he has declined to interfere in the action of the respondent-Corporation inasmuch as after selection of the appellant, the landlord, who had granted lease in his favour, had withdrawn the land. The learned Single Judge after having taken note of the said fact has given stamp of approval to the action of the - 3 - Corporation which has gone for re-advertisement. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that he is prepared to give another piece of land so that letter of intent can stand revived leaves us unimpressed inasmuch as it is only assurance of some kind of uncertainty, which on commercial principle, does not commend acceptance. 10. In view of the aforesaid, we perceive no error in the order of the learned Single Judge and, accordingly, the same stands affirmed. 11. In the result, the appeal, without being any merit, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Sunil (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)