IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.934 of 2010 IN CWJC 6119/2007 WITH I.A. NO. 5233 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 934 of 2010 =========================================== NAVIN KUMAR S/O BIRENDAR PRASAD SHARMA R/O MOHALLA- RAI KASHI NATH COLONY, KATARI HILL ROAD, P.O.- RAMPUR, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH SENIOR RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE BLOCK A MAURYA LOK DAKBANGLA ROAD, PATNA 4. THE SENIOR RETAIL SALES MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PATNA REGIONAL/DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BLOCK A MAURYA COMPLEX DAK BANGLAW ROAD, PATNA 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. STATE OFFICE BLOCK A MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAKBANGLA ROAD, PATNA 6. NITU KUMARI W/O GUDDU SHARMA R/O JAROO BANWARIA, P.O.- JAROO BANWARIA, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTT.- JAHANABAD ============================================ Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. SHAILESH KUMAR SHARMA For the Respondent: Mr. RAGHIB AHSAN(ASST.SG) Mr. ANIL KUMAR SINHA Mr. AMLESH KUMAR SINHA Mr. SUNIL KUMAR =========================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 03. 26.08.2010 I.A. No. 5233 of 2010 This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of delay of 38 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. The Interim Application stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 934 of 2010 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 15th February 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 6119 of 2007. The learned Single Judge has refused to interfere in the matter of allotment of retail outlet by the respondent Indian Oil Corporation on the ground that pending the petition the respondent no. 6 has been allotted the retail outlet and that has become functional. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj etc. Versus Union of India and another etc. reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C. 2562. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has 3 rightly exercised the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed in limine. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)