IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.730 of 2008 ----- Smt.Prabhavati Kumari, Wife of Purushotam Kumar Singh, Resident of Balia Hata (Basdiha), P.O. Nasariganj, P.S. Kara Kat, District- Rohtas at Sasaram … Petitioner-appellant Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Sastri Bhavan, New Delhi-1. 2. Chairman –cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 3. Director (Marketing) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 17, Jamashedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 4. General Manager-cum- Senior Manager, Netword Ayojan, East Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6, Church Lane Kolkata-700001. 5. Senior Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Loknayak Jai Prakash Bhavan, 6th Floor, Dakbunglow Road, Patna Respondents/ Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the respondents : None ------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------ Dated, the 29th September, 2008 We heard the 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 - 2 - 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 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. Letters Patent Appeal does not deserve to be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil