S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1813/2010 (Roshan Kumar vs. IOC & Ors.) Order dt:20/5/2010 1/2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1813/2010 (Roshan Kumar vs. IOC & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 20/5/2010 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Sanjay Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.O.P.Mehta, for the respondent Co. Mr.Anil Bachhawat, for the respondent no.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the private respondent no.3 have rival claims for a particular outlet for providing Petrol, Diesel and Lubricants to be granted by respondent no.1 Indian Oil Corporation. Petitioner's case is about satisfaction of the criteria laid down by the respondent Corporation, whereas, the respondent no.3 has contended that he has been selected and allotted the said outlet. Learned counsel for the respondent corporation brings to the notice of this Court the order passed in similar situation in SBCWP No. 11154/09 (Ajay Kumar Vs. IOC) in which it has been held that the writ petition itself be treated as representation to the respondent Corporation, which will decide the same in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In effect, the submission is that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to the competent authority of respondent corporation namely Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manger, Division Office, Udaipur. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the determination of the question of fact is involved in the matter S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1813/2010 (Roshan Kumar vs. IOC & Ors.) Order dt:20/5/2010 2/2 and comparative merit and demerit of petitioner and respondent No.3 is to be adjudged by the respondent Corporation through its competent authority – respondent No.2, the petitioner is relegated to the alternate remedy and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation the writ petition shall itself be treated as representation of the petitioner along with the documents and petitioner may appear before the respondent No.2, in the first instance, 1st June, 2010. It is expected of respondent No.2 to decide the said representation within a period of one month thereafter after giving an opportunity to both the private parties by a speaking order. If the petitioner is still aggrieved of the said order, he is at liberty to take appropriate remedy in accordance with law. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. [DR. VINEET KOTHARI],J. Item no.72 baweja/-