IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9670 of 2010 MD. HASSIN ALAM S/O LATE MD. ALIMUDDIN, R/O VILL.- DAHIBHAT ALIAS ASHA P.O. AND P.S. TERHAGACHH, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ……………...PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI-1 2. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, R/O 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 3. THE CHAIRMAN, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, R/O 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. R/O 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 5. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, PATNA L.P.G. REGION, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN POST BOX NO. 40, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA 800001 6. VIJAY KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL R/O VILL.- PHULWARIA, P.O.- THIRANIGANJ, P.S.- TERHAGACHH, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ 7. PAWAN KUMAR AGRAWAL S/O JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL R/O VILL.- PHULWARIA, P.O.- THIRANIGANJ, P.S.- TERHAGACHH, DISTT.- KISHANGANJ 8. THE PLANT MANAGER, PATNA L.P.G. PLANT, PATNA-1. …………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr.Advocate with Mr. N. Hoda, Advocate. For respondent nos.2 to 5 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For respondent no.7 : M/s Ajay Kr. Sinha and Diwakar Sinha, Advocates. ----------- 05/ 07.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and its authorities as well as learned counsel for private respondent no.7. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the draw held on 20.05.2010 as well as memo dated 20.05.2010 (Annexure-7) containing the proceeding of draw for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak in which respondent no.7 was selected. - 2 - 3. From the arguments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that vide advertisement dated 17.10.2009 published in daily newspaper ‘Danik Jagaran’ quotationers were invited for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Vitrak for various mauza of different districts including mauza Terhagachh in the district of Kishanganj. From the said advertisement it is quite apparent that specifically village/town was mentioned, hence the land for the said purpose should have been included in the village described in the said advertisement. However, all the parties to this writ petition, namely the petitioner, the Corporation and contesting respondent no.7 agreed that there is no revenue village by the name of Terhagachh and hence none of the parties have any land in village Terhagachh. Thus it appears that there is a defect in the advertisement itself by which the name of village has been wrongly mentioned as Terhagachh, hence the entire proceeding with respect to the said village Terhagachh is vitiated. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of and the entire proceeding of draw dated 20.05.2010 issued by the respondents authorities of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. with respect to village Terhagachh in the district of Kishanganj is hereby quashed. The Corporation will be at liberty to issue fresh notifications/advertisements with respect to any appropriate revenue village. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)