IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1355 of 2009 1. SMT.VANDANA SINGH, W/O SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH, Resident of VILL. + P.O- JAMUHAR, P.S- DEHRI, DISTT- ROHTAS. --------- Appellant/Writ Petitioner Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN ALI JANAM MARG, BANDRA (EAST )MUMBAI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BIHAR STATE OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN , 5TH FLOOR DAK BANGLOW, PATNA. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CIRPORTATION LIMITED, BLOCK-A, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX , DAK BANGLOW, PATNA. 4. SMT. RINKI SINGH, D/O NOT KNOWN AT+P.O- BHERIYA, P.S. DEHRI, DISTT- ROHTAS(BIHAR). ---------- Respondents/Respondents ----------- 4 07.01.2011 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances mentioned in I.A. No. 6790 of 2009, the delay in filing this appeal is condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, we would find that the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ application, inasmuch as, the Authority, Indian Oil Corporation, while allotting the petrol pump to the private respondent no.4 who had ranked first in the selection list, has not committed any irregularity which can touch even the fringe of arbitrariness. The four objections of the appellant writ petitioner 2 were duly considered and a reasoned order was passed on 3.12.2008 (Annexure-4), which itself goes to show that there was no infirmity in the allotment of petrol pump to the respondent no.4, who had ranked first in the selection list. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant writ petitioner that the criteria of land was not fulfilled and that certain plot of land not belonging to the respondent no.4 was taken into account is also not correct, inasmuch as, the authority has taken into account that half portion of the land was free from any mortgage and belonging to the respondent no.4 and remaining half was under mortgage with the Punjab National Bank for which permission was also taken from the Bank by the respondent no.4. The authority in fact has fully explained in the order that the decision of the Oil Selection Board based on different parameters was in accordance with the policy of the Indian Oil Corporation. The issue that plot no.742 did not belong to the respondent no.4 in fact would 3 be neither here nor there, inasmuch as, the Authority has considered this aspect with regard to the fulfillment of the criteria of land and also has gone to answer the objections in the impugned order that was passed at the behest of the appellant writ petitioner. In that view of the matter, learned single Judge has rightly held that such commercial interest of the Corporation could not have been interfered by the writ court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result, this appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. Rishi/Kanchan (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)