IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1516 of 2005 ----------- Gopal Lal Baidh, son of late Prassna Lal Vaidyta, resident of Kesera Path Road, Police Station Kisanganj, District Kishanganj. …… Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. I..B.P. Company Limited, ( An Indian Oil Group Co.), Business Group (Petroleum) Shanti Niketan Building, 12th Floor, 8 Camec Street, Calcutta-700017, through its General Manager (ER) 3, General Manager (ER), I.B.P. Company Limited, Shanti Niketan Building, 12th Floor, 8 Camec Street, Calcutta-700017. 4. The Chief Regional Manager, I.B.P. Company Limited, Shanti Niketan Building, 12th Floor, 8 Camec Street, Calcutta-700017. 5. The Chief Divisional Manager, I.B.P. Company Limited, Abhay Bhawan, 3rd Floor, Frazer Road, Patna-1. 6. The Divisional Manager, I.B.P. Company Limited, Barauni Refinery, Division Office, District Begusarai. 7. The Additional Divisional Manager, I.B.P. Company Limited, Barauni Refinery, Division Office, District Begusarai. 8. Mr. Punit Minz. Engineer, I.B.P. Company Limited, Barauni Refinery, Division Office, District Begusarai. 9. The Divisional Manager, I.B.P. Company Limited, G. S. Road., Uluwari, Gauhati 10. The Assistant Manager, Sales, I.B.P. Company Limited, Barauni District Begusarai. 11. The Senior Manager, A.M. Sales I.B.P. Company Limited Barvni Divisional Office, Barauni, District Begusarai. 12. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj. … Respondents --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate For Respondent-I.O.C.: M/s Anil Kumar Sinha & Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, S.C. 21 and Mr. Samrendra Kumar, Advocate --------- 15/ 15.03.2011 I.A.No. 2421 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 12.03.2010 for expunging the name of the sole petitioner, who is reported to have died on 18.05.2009 and for substitution of his wife Basanti Devi in his place. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this interlocutory application is allowed. Let the name of the sole petitioner be expunged and in his 2 place the name of his aforesaid widow be substituted as her duly executed vakalatnama has already been filed on her behalf. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 15.07.2004 (Annexure 10), by which the Additional Divisional General, I. B. P. Company Ltd. has held that due to violation of clauses (1) and (4) of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Intent (LOI) dated 25.02.1999 (Annexure 2), the LOI granted to the petitioner stood withdrawn as well as for other ancillary reliefs. 4. After considering the arguments of the parties as well as the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the LOI was issued by the Company on 25.02.1999 (Annexure 2), in which several conditions were prescribed for the said offer. Thereafter, for five years, No Objection Certificate was not produced and in the meantime the validity of the LOI expired on 24.01.2000 and according to the Company the petitioner violated clauses (1) and (4) of the terms and conditions of the LOI and hence by impugned letter dated 15.07.2004 the Company informed that the petitioner’s LOI stood withdrawn. 5. Against the aforesaid letter issued by the Additional Divisional Manager, the petitioner filed an application before the General Manager of the Company on 06.08.2004 (Annexure 11) and after considering the entire matter in detail, the 3 Divisional Manager refused to take another view on the ground that the LOI was not validated after 24.01.2000 and that frequent change of land was never approved by the Company and the No Objection Certificate for the land in question was not obtained up till withdrawal of the LOI. This order/letter dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure 12) has not been challenged by the petitioner. 6. Considering the entire materials on record, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned actions taken by the respondents or in the letters dated 15.07.2004 and 31.12.2004 issued by the authorities concerned. The petitioner also cannot take advantage of the No Objection Certificate, which was obtained belatedly on 20.10.2004 (Annexure 8) much after the LOI was withdrawn vide impugned letter dated 15.07.2004. 7. 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. )