IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19166 of 2010 Amit Kumar, S/o Arun Kumar Sharma, R/o village- Paraswan, P.S.- Ramgarhg Chowk, District- Lakhisarai. ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Head Office, Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai. 2. Dy. General Manager(NCZ) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Lucknow, Retail Region-1, Nehru Inclave, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. 3. Sr. Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Patna, Regail Region, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dakbunglow Crossing, Box Frazer Road, Patna(UP). 4. Ranjeet Singh Rana, S/o Maharana Pratap Singh, P.S.-Sarmera, District- Nalanda(Biharsharif). 5. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Personnel Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. ........ Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Pravin Kumar Gupta, Advocate. Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate. For the H.P.C.L. : Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate. For the State : Ms. Bandana Singh, AC to G.P.20. ----------- 2. 25.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition, which was affidavited on 20.09.2010, was filed in the registry on 27.09.2010. In the writ petition stand has been taken that the petitioner, who was a candidate for selection of retail outlet dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and was placed at No. 2 in the merit list, filed his complaint on 16.02.2010, but no action has been taken by the authorities on the said complaint petition. Learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. submits that by letter dated 22.06.2010 the petitioner was told that his complaint dated 16.02.2010 has been investigated as - 2 - per Grievance/Complaint Redressal System in the Guidelines for Selection of Retail Outlet Dealers and the copy of the speaking order of Dy. General Manager-NCZ was also enclosed. The said letter has been personally received by the petitioner on 2.07.2010. The letter with the enclosures has been produced in Court. It appears that this writ petition has been filed after suppressing the material facts and making false statements. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not a fit case for exercising this court’s discretionary jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sujit (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)