IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4849 of 2010 Jai Prakash Mishra, son of Shri Bishwa Nath Prasad Mishra, Resident of Mohalla – Koat Bazar, Ward No – 9, Sitamarhi, P S – Sitamarhi, District – Sitamarhi - Petitioner Versus 1 The Union of India through the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi 2 The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi 3 The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar 4 The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi 5 The Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, 4 and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 6 The Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, 4 and 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 001 7 The General Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, Plot No – 31, Prince Gulab Mohammad Shah Road, Golf Green, Kolkata – 700 095 8 The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna 9 Shri P M Jha, the Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Barauni, N H 31, P O – Paparaur, District – Begusarai 10 Shri Dhananjay Kumar, Sales Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Barauni (Retail), Territory, N H – 31, P O – Paparaur, District – Begusarai 11 Rakesh Kumar, son on not known, resident of Mohalla – Sonapatti, P S – Sitamarhi, District – Sitamarhi - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Krishna Ballabha Sharma, Adv For respondents No 5 to 10 : Mr Sanjay Singh, Advocate *** 2 22.03.2010 The petitioner had applied to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for allotment of a retail petroleum outlet on Janki Asthan to Riga Road in the district of Sitamarhi. He has not been selected rather private respondent No 11 has been selected. Petitioner made a grievance to the Public Grievance Cell through Area Marketing Manager of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited which was received in the office of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on the 07th of December, 2009. The 2 grievance of the petitioner not having been met, it is alleged, that letter of intent has already been issued to respondent No 11 and he is proceeding with the matter. The grievance of the petitioner is that petitioner was not allotted any marks for availability of land on the ground that there were pucca structures on the land. Petitioner has annexed photograph to show that there are in fact no pucca structure. What is found there is thatched roof. Mr Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the photograph itself would show, which fact is not contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that it is through those thatched roof houses, there are several garages/workshops operating there. That would disentitle the petitioner. Petitioner, on the other hand, points out that the land belongs to the petitioner and those constructions could be removed within hours of allotment being made. He points out that in the tender notice itself, it is provided that upon selection, it would be incumbent upon the selected person to make vacant land available within a period of two months. Thus, once allotment is made after marks are allotted to petitioner, petitioner would have got the land vacated within no time. It is not expected that the petitioner must keep vacant land from before without utilising the same in between. In my view, the final decision in this regard rests with the Grievance Cell where petitioner’s application is pending. It is only expected that they would decide this matter prior to taking 3 final decision in the matter without creating further complications. It is unfortunate that there being a Grievance Cell, the grievance is that that Cell itself does not work. Be that as it may, I direct the Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna to immediately take up the matter and get the grievance of the petitioner duly examined in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. In case it is found that the petitioner is liable to be awarded marks which were wrongly disallowed, the matter of award of letter of intent to respondent No 11 would have to be reconsidered. The decision must be taken within one month from today. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)