IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10697 of 2005 Fuleshwar Yadav @ Fuleshwar Pd . Yadav, son of late Mita Ram Yadav, resident of village Janki Nagar (Nawagarhi), P.S. Naya Ram Nagar, District Munger. … Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India through Secretary, Department and Ministry of Petroleum,Government of India, New Delhi 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna through Area Marketing Manager. 3. The Area Marketing Manager, Bharat Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ashiana Chamber, 4th Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna 4. The Co-ordinator, Dealer Selection Office, Patna , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Ashiana Chamber, 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Ojha For the Respondents : None. ------- 03/ 26.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing respondent-authorities to take interview in terms of call letter for allotment of dealership of retail outlet of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity ) at Nawagarhi in the district of Munger, which was refused by the Co-coordinator, Dealer Selection Office of the Corporation, Patna orally giving reason of non-submission of proper affidavit and also for directing the respondents to consider the matter of the petitioner for allotment of dealership of the said outset. 3. Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and materials on record, it transpires that earlier there was an advertisement for allotment of the dealership of outlets for various 2 places including the aforesaid place in question. It further transpires that the petitioner was not considered by the authorities and another person was granted dealership for the said place, who is continuing since then. 4. In the instant writ petition, although the petitioner has claimed to be granted dealership of the outlet in question, but the grant of dealership to the other person has not been challenged nor the said person has been impleaded as a party to this writ petition although six years have lapsed since the filing of this writ petition. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )