IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1565 of 2011 ----------- Deepak Kumar, son of Sri Sant Kumar Yadav, resident of village Nirpur, P.S. Patepur, District Vaishali. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its General Manager, Lak Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna. 2. General Manager, Lak Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna. 3. Deputy General Manager, Retail Sales, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Lak Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor Dak Bunglow Crossing, Patna. 4. Sales Officer, Marketing Division, Patna Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Block-A, Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 5. Subodh Kumar, son of Sri Prabhunath Sah, resident of village +P.O.+P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali. …… Respondents -------- For the Petitioner : M/s Chitranjan Sinha, Sr. Advocate and Manish Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent-I.O.C.: M/s Anil Kumar Sinha and Amlesh Kumar Verma, Advocates. ------- 05/ 14.03.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the result of the selection process for the Dealers/Operators of the Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlet) for the site “one kilometer inside from Patepur Block towards Badiha Road, Patna Division” and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Admittedly on 14.07.2010 (Annexure 1) an advertisement was made by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation for the sake of brevity „) inviting Dealers/Operators of the Retail Outlet at various places in the State of Bihar, out of which serial no. 139 was with respect to 2 one kilometer inside from Patepur Block towards Badiha Road in Patna Division of the Corporation. It transpires that in response to the said advertisement, several applicants including the petitioner placed their claims before the Corporation, whereafter the Corporation sent interview letters to all the applicants including the petitioner on 10.12.2010 fixing the date of interview as 28.12.2010. It is also not in dispute that the interview was taken on 28.12.2010 of all the applicants excluding the petitioner, who did not appear for interview and result was published on the same day and a panel was prepared and a Letter of Intent (LOI) was going to be issued in favour of the first empanelled candidate, namely, Subodh Kumar (respondent no.5). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not blaming the Corporation with respect to non-service of the interview letter sent to him on 10.12.2010 but his claim is that although the petitioner with his family resides at the concerned address, but the Postal Peon collusively mentioned on several dates that either the petitioner could not be met or he was out of station, which was absolutely wrong. He further submits that on the same address the petitioner received first and third letters from the Corporation but the second letter sent to him on the same address was not received although it was the most important letter calling the petitioner for interview on the basis of his application. He relies upon two decisions of this Court, namely, in case of Lallan Kumar Sinha vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in 1998(3) P.L.J.R. 770 3 as well as in case of Md. Arif Khan vrs. The Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in 1998(3) P.L.J.R. 901(DB), in which it was specifically held that for the laches on the part of the Postal Department, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. He further places reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of Dwarika Nath vs.Income Tax Officer, Special Circle, D Ward, Kanpur and another, reported in A.I.R. 1966 S.C. Page-81, wherein it was held that the High Court has a very wide power in its writ jurisdiction and can exercise its authority in such cases. He further submits that due to the collusive conduct of the Postal Peon, great injustice has been caused to the petitioner and there is no occasion for assuming that the report of the Postal Peon was sacrosanct. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that the report of the Postal Peon at Annexure 7 clearly shows that the Postal Peon had gone to the petitioner on several dates i.e. 15.12.2010, 18.12.2010 and 23.12.2010 but repeatedly the petitioner did not meet and it was reported that he was out of the house. On 27.12.2010 also when the Postal Peon went there, the petitioner could not meet and it was reported to him that he lived at Muzaffarpur. 6. From the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials on record, it is difficult to presume that there were any laches on the part of the Postal Peon or his conduct was collusive. Hence, the aforesaid case laws relied upon by learned 4 counsel for the petitioner are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 7. This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )