IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 17583 of 2009 1. UPENDRA PRASAD SINGH S/O LATE RAM PRAMOD SINGH R/O WARD NO. 10,NIRMALI, P.S. NIRMALI,DISTT-SUPAUL Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUMBAI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN -CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, BIHAR STATE OFFICE, MARKETING DIVISION EASTERN REGION LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGALOW ROAD, P.S.KOTWALI, DISTT-PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MARKETING DIVISION BEGUSARAI 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MADHUBANI 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PHULPARAS, MADHUBANI 7. MANOJ KUMAR S/O DR. DARPI PRASAD YADAV R/O NIRMALI, P.S.NIRMALI,DISTT-SUPAUL ----------- For the petitioner : Mr Gautam Kejriwal ------------- 3 18.01.2010 Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the selection of respondent No 7 for establishment of Kisan Seva Kendra by Indian Oil Corporation. Learned counsel submits that respondent No 7 has wrongly obtained a certificate of residence showing himself to be the resident of Nirmali whereas he is the resident of Jhanjharpur. In my view, as petitioner seeks to challenge the validity of residence certificate granted by officers of the State over which Indian Oil Corporation does not exercise appellate jurisdiction, it would be open to the petitioner to file appropriate applications before the authority granting the residence certificate and establishing before him that the certificate was wrongly granted by him and wrongly obtained by respondent No 7. The Indian Oil 2 Authorities had, in their advertisement itself, stated that they would act on basis of certificates granted by district authorities. Therefore, the lis, if any, has to be started by the petitioner before the authorities granting the certificate and not before the Corporation. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)