IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.2277 of 2011 (M/S) Madhu Saini ………..Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & another …….Respondents Shri Parikshit Saini, Advocate holding brief of Shri Mohd. Safdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the respondents. Dated: 20th October, 2011 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondents not to issue letter of intent in favour of anyone of Retail Outlet for location at SIDCUL- Bhadrabad Road, between 3 Km. from raja Biscuit Factory to SIDCUL, under open category, till speaking order on the reply of the petitioner is passed. 3. An advertisement was issued on 06.06.2010 by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for issuance of retail outlets distributorship (Petrol Pumps) in the State of Uttarakhand. Petitioner submitted her application form with all the details and formalities for the Retail Outlet for the advertised location at serial number 22. On 28.09.2010, petitioner appeared for interview alongwith others and was awarded highest marks. After a period of about one year, on 19.09.2011, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing her that a complaint had been received regarding selection of candidates for allotment of Retail Outlets. On investigation of complaint, it was observed that experience certificate submitted by the petitioner with the application form had not been issued by 2 the IOCL dealer M/s Gurukul Highway Filling Station, Narsan, District Haridwar. By the said notice, fifteen days’ time has been given to the petitioner for submitting her reply. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that show cause notice was served on the petitioner on 03.10.2011 and the petitioner submitted her reply on 04.10.2011 within time. He submitted that since the allocation of the Retail Outlet, which petitioner is supposed to get, is under consideration of the respondents, the petitioner should be given full opportunity to place her case before the respondents prior to final order is passed. 5. Shri Dinesh Gahtori, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that before passing final order, the petitioner would be provided full opportunity to place her case. 6. Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to place her case before them prior to final order is passed. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Stay application (CLMA No.1142 of 2011) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 20.10.2011