IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10909 of 2010 SMT.BINDU SHUKLA, wife of Shri Tribhuwan Kumar Shukla, resident of village Bagouchha, P.O. Kala Pipra, P.S. Maharajganj, District- Siwan…. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the District Magistrate, Siwan, 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. represented through its Chairman,17, Jamshedje Tata Road, Mumbai. 3. The Deputy General Manager (NCZ), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., situated at 2 Nehru Enclave, Gomti nagar, Lucknow. 4. The Senior Manager (RE & MIS-NCZ), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., situated at 1 Nehru Enclave Gomit nagar, Lucknow. 5. The Senior Regional Manager (Retail) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Jai Prakash Narain Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bunglow Road, Post Box No.40 Town & District- Patna. 6. The Circle Officr, Daraunda, District-Siwan 7. Smt. Rita Singh, wife of Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, resident of village- Kameshra, P.O.Kt. Bharouli, Daraunda, District-Siwan… Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary,Senior Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For respondent Nos. 3 & 4: Mr.Ranjit Sharan, Advocate For the State: Mr. Vasant Vikas, A.C. to S.C.23 ------ 2. 15.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsels for the State and for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order dated 24.6.2010 issued by the Senior Manager (RE & MIS-NCZ), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., by which he has rejected the complaint filed by the petitioner against the selection of respondent No.7, Smt. Rita Singh, for setting up a retail outlet at Karsaut in the District of Siwan and for further - 2 - consequential reliefs. Pursuant to an advertisement published by the respondent Corporation the petitioner along with others filed an application for dealership for retail outlet at Karsaut in the District of Siwan. At the end of the selection process, respondent No.7 was No.1 in the panel having been allotted 84.9 marks whereas petitioner was at serial no.2 having obtained 83.9 marks. The petitioner filed a complaint before the respondent authorities of the Corporation stating that respondent No.7 had offered plot No.3680, but the said land did not have frontage of 40 meter on the main road, which is State Highway. It was the case of the petitioner on the basis of Nazri Naksha enclosed by her that plot No.3695 does not have direct frontage on the State Highway as in between plot No.3680 and 3695, there is another Plot No.3696, which is Gairmazrua Aam land belonging to the State of Bihar, whereas plot No.3680 had frontage of 106’ which was less than 40 meters as per advertisement. The authorities of the respondent Corporation examined the complaint after giving due opportunity to the complainant petitioner. They also obtained two reports from - 3 - the Circle Officer with respect to the status of the plots in question. On the basis of the same, it was concluded that plot no.3680 alone had frontage of 40.23 meters on the State Highway and thus respondent No.7 fulfilled the requisite qualification of providing a minimum frontage of 40 meters as required by the advertisement for the outlet. It was further found from the report of the Circle Officer that Plot No.3696 belongs to the State of Bihar but as the land was by the side of the road, it is used as a road. It was also found that the land offered by respondent No.7 with required frontage abutted the road and the complaint of the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to argue his case on the basis of the Nazri Naksha that has been produced by the petitioner before the authorities of the respondent Corporation in support of the stand that respondent No.7 has not provided land with the requisite frontage as per the advertisement. It has also been sought to be argued by him that the land of plot No. 3696 in front of plot No.3695 being Gairmazarua Aam belonging to the State of Bihar, in the future, can be settled by the State - 4 - even otherwise and thus the plots submitted by petitioner do not fulfil the necessary requirement of the advertisement. For the said reason, it is urged by learned counsel that the allotment of dealership to respondent No.7 should be declared illegal and the petitioner being the No.2 candidate should be directed to be issued the letter of intent for the same. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and materials on the record, this Court finds that there is no reason to come to a different conclusion on the question of facts as have been arrived at by the respondent authorities of the Oil Company on the basis of enquiries made by them. The issues raised by the petitioner are pure question of facts and such disputed question of facts cannot be looked into in writ proceedings. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authorities have acted arbitrarily in the matter. The complaint of the petitioner has been duly examined and after conducting thorough enquiries the respondent authorities have come to the conclusion that despite the existence of the Gairmazarua Aam plot No.3696 in front of the other plot No.3695 provided by respondent No.7, yet the - 5 - other plot No.3680 itself provides the necessary frontage of 40 meters and for the said reason, they came to the conclusion that respondent No.7 fulfils the requirement of the advertisement. This Court does not find any cogent and unimpeachable materials on the record to come to a different conclusion. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )