IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.777 of 2008 ----- Smt.Manju Devi wife of Sri Ajay Kumar Gupta Resident of Mohalla Main Road, Nasariganj in the District of Rohtas, Sasaram. ….. … Petitioner-Appellant. Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Senior Regional Manager, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. 2. Senior Regional Manager, H.P.Corporation Ltd. Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna. 3. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. Respondents-respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Dinu Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the respondent no.3 : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, Standing Counsel-XV ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal -------- Dated, the 19th November, 2008. We heard counsel for the appellant. 2. The Single Judge considered the matter thus: “In my view, in view of the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. as sworn by the Senior Regional Manager (Retail) in CWJC No.6554 of 2006 stating in paragraph 5, thereof, that due to the aforesaid advertisement the respondent-Corporation is of the opinion that the dealership for the location Nasriganj, District-Rohtas needs to be totally cancelled and a fresh advertisement with specific details with the location must be given, but, because of the pendency of - 2 - the writ petition respondent-Corporation has not taken any further action in this respect. I may also note Annexure-7 to the I.A. filed by the petitioner is a letter dated 22.12.2006 of the Corporation, wherein, Senior Regional Manager (Retail) has already informed the petitioner Manju Devi that because of the disputes in matter was enquired into and the advertisement for the location is cancelled and as such he cannot be considered any further. In view of these statements nothing survives in all three writ petitions. They have liberty to apply as and when advertisements are issued. The respondent would be at liberty now to communicate the formal orders to the three writ petitioners further individually and the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law to the appropriate Court.” 3. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Single Judge. 4. Incidentally, we may observe that by the impugned order the Single Judge disposed of three writ petitions being CWJC No.6554/2006, CWJC No.13138/2006; Smt.Prabhawati Kumari Vs. the Union of India & ors, and CWJC No.6590/2006. The petitioner in CWJC No. 13138/2006 challenged the impugned order by filing the appeal being LPA No.730/2008 and the said LPA has been dismissed by us on 29th September, 2008. 5. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil