IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5410 of 2009 M/S R.K.B.K.LTD. Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 03. 03.11.2009 Way back on 29.6.2001 petitioner was communicated a decision of the respondent I.O.C. that in terms of the Ministry’s guidelines all unauthorized petrol pumps, which were in operation in contravention of the provisions of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of supply and distribution and prevention of malpractices) Order, 1998, shall cease operation. Petitioner had a valid licence to run his business as a dealer of SKO/LDO but he was also selling HSD as a what was known as Packed Point dealer. Based on the complaints received and on review of the policy the Ministry issued guidelines stopping such dealers to operate. After the communication dated 29.6.2001, it seems petitioner had accepted the position and confined his business to dealing with the products he was permitted to deal with such as SKO/LDO. It seems that a similar direction issued against certain other dealers came to be a subject matter of dispute before this Court. After the petitioners having lost at the level of the learned single Judge, the issue travelled to the Division Bench and the Division Bench considering the contentions allowed the appeal and referred the matter for fresh consideration to the concerned companies. The Division Bench order is dated 18th May, 2005. Emboldened by the decision of the Division Bench the petitioner decided to file the present writ application, that too, in the year 2009 seeking parity and - 2 - similar consideration by the respondent Oil Company. His simple prayer is that his case should also be considered in light of the decision of the Division Bench. Submission of the learned counsel for the Oil Company is that it is a belated kind of application after the petitioner had reconciled to the change of policy and the communication made to him in 2001. Merely because in a set of facts a direction was issued by the Division Bench to consider the matter afresh in those cases, it does not mean that the policy has taken a turn around or that the petitioner has succeeded in explaining his inaction of not raising a grievance from 2001 till 2009. The Court is with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Oil Corporation that with change in policy and the petitioner having accepted the final decision way back in 2001 it is too belated stage to reopen the issue by way of a writ petition. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)