IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 1620 of 2006 RAM BABU SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 7 19.09.2008 The petitioner had applied to a notice inviting application for setting up retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. The advertisement, which is Annexure-1, clearly stipulated that the retail outlet had to be at Chapwa More. It is not in dispute that Chapwa More is the intersection of the National Highway and the State Highway. Twenty eight persons applied, out of which, seven did not turn up for any further verification leaving twenty one persons. Field investigation report was made and petitioner was placed as candidate No 1 in the panel for selection. The petrol pump, he had offered, was three kilometers from the said crossing. There were other candidates who had offered land much closure to the crossing but were not allotted any marks for those lands on the ground that those lands were within one thousand meters of the crossing. The relevance of this is that just before the advertisement was published, the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) issued a circular clearly stating that no petrol pump should be established at the road crossings of National Highways or National/State Highways nor any petrol pump should be established within one kilometer of such crossings. Those persons, whose applications were rejected on being close to the crossings, complained to the Corporation that the advertisement gave an impression that petrol pump was to be established at the Chapwa More crossing or nearest to 2 it. In the advertisement, there was no mention of the NHAI Circular. The Corporation examined the matter and in view of this defect in the advertisement and the circular banning of setting up of petrol pump near the crossing, they issued Annexure-8 to the petitioner intimating him that the entire selection process and the advertisement stands cancelled as NHAI does not permit establishment of petrol pump at crossings. Petitioner’s grievance is that his site, as inspected by the Corporation, was three kilometers away from the crossings and, thus, not in conflict with the circular of NHAI. His selection should not, thus, be interfered with. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that as the advertisement itself was found to be misleading and in conflict with the circular, the Corporation thought it better to cancel the advertisement with liberty to readvertise with better particulars. In my view, the action of the Corporation cannot be interfered with. Petitioner had merely participated. His candidature alone has not been rejected. He has not been discriminated against. The entire advertisement has been cancelled. In such an event, no notice was also required to be given to the petitioner or any person because it was pursuant to a policy decision that the advertisement was being withdrawn/cancelled. Thus, in my view, the writ petition merits no consideration and is, accordingly, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)