IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17706 of 2009 ***** Meera Kumari, Wife of Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, C/o Jitendra Chaudhary, resident of village and P.O. Gobindpur Via-Laheriasarai, P.S. Laheriasarai, District-Darbhanga. …. …. Petitioner Versus 1. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, 17, Jamshedjew Tata Road, Mumbai, 400020. 2. The Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Jamshedjew Tata Road, Mumbai, 400020. 3. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., VIth Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Post Box No.40, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. 4. The Executive Director, L.P.G., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Hindustan Bhawan 8, Shoorji Ballabhadas Market, Post Box No.155, Mumbai 400 001. 5. Smt. Sipra 6. Smt. Renu Jha The name of fathers of both of them are not know. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., VIth Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Post Box No.40, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. …. …. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar No.1, Advocate For the HPCL : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate ----------- 2. 18.12.2009. Heard counsel for the parties. The issue of selection of a L.P.G. distributor at Bahadurpur in the district of Darbhanga advertised by the respondent HPCL was a subject matter of dispute before this High Court in an earlier writ application, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 11461 of 2009. After due deliberations the writ application stood disposed of vide order dated 5.10.2009 giving a direction to the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioner, dispose if of by a reasoned order as well as indicate as to how the parameter capability to provide finance was assessed in the case of the petitioner as well as the private respondent nos. 5 and 6. - 2 - Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation in their counter affidavit have taken their stand that Annexure-7 is a complete answer to the objections and grievance of the petitioner. It explains the parameters and the guidelines in the simplest of language and term and the petitioner has been told in no uncertain terms that the marks which has been allotted to her is what could be allotted. Not only this the petitioner has also tried to seek information under the Right to Information Act and on a direction passed by the Central Information Commission the representative of the petitioner was given an opportunity to look into all the records of the Interview Board and the marks awarded in favour of the private respondents. If despite all this the petitioner is not satisfied then the petitioner can never be satisfied, having lost out in the process of selection. There are other submissions as well which have been made in the counter affidavit, which only explains the process and the fairness which is adopted in such selection which has drastically undergone a change over a period of time giving the past experience and the complaints received by the Oil Companies as well as by the Ministry from time to time. Yet another submission made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter is that there was no full disclosure of the material when the representative appeared before the Corporation and, therefore, there is a lurking doubt in the mind of the petitioner about the objectivity with which marks have been awarded. This submission of the petitioner is a little difficult to accept in view of the fact that a clear direction has been issued for disclosure and - 3 - there is no material to show that any objection against non-disclosure was raised before any authority. The dispute having been examined before various forums and the reasoning having been assigned in Annexure-7 are cogent and objective reasoning, which does not smack of any arbitrariness, the time has come that the dispute must be allowed to rest. The writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. Pawan/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)