IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.843 of 2009 KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI DHARMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PHALPURA, P.O-CHANDHOURA, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ........PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, SIWAN. 3.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SIWAN. 4.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAHARAJGANJ,SUB DIVISION, DISTRICT-SIWAN AT P.O AND P.S MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 5. THE IN-CHARGE OFFICER, DISTRICT GENERAL SECTION, SIWAN COLLECTORIATE, SIWAN. 6. THE B.D.O, DARAUNDA BLOCK, AT P.O AND P.S DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 7. THE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER, DARAUNDA AT P.O AND P.S DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 8. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BANGLOW ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER. 9. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BANGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 10.SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, S/O SRI DINESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FALPURA, P.O. CHANCHOORA VIA- DARAUNDA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ...........RESPONDENTS. with LPA No.640 of 2009 KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI DHARMDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PHALPURA, P.O-CHANDHOURA, P.S.- DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ........PETITIONER/APPELLANT. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, SIWAN. 3.THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, SIWAN. 4.THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAHARAJGANJ,SUB DIVISION, DISTRICT-SIWAN AT P.O AND P.S MAHARAJGANJ, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 5. THE IN-CHARGE OFFICER, DISTRICT GENERAL SECTION, SIWAN COLLECTORIATE, SIWAN. 6. THE B.D.O, DARAUNDA BLOCK, AT P.O AND P.S DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 7. THE BLOCK CO-OPERATIVE EXTENSION OFFICER, DARAUNDA AT P.O AND P.S DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. 8. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX BLOCK A, 3RD FLOOR, DAK BANGLOW ROAD, PATNA THROUGH ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES 2 MANAGER (MARKETING DIVISION), PATNA, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BLOCK A, 3RD FLOOR. 9. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BANGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 10.SHASHI SHEKHAR SINGH, S/O SRI DINESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- FALPURA, P.O. CHANCHOORA VIA- DARAUNDA, P.S.-DARAUNDA, DISTRICT-SIWAN. ...........RESPONDENTS. For petitioner: Mr. N.K Agrawal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D.N Tiwari and Mr. Vijayanand. For the respondents:Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Adv and Mr. Pravin Prabhakar, Adv. For I.O.C: Mr. K. D Chatterjee, Sr. Adv and Mr. A.K Verma, Adv. ----------- 04/ 14.12.2010 Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Agrawal, learned Senior counsel for the appellants in both these cases and Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat appearing on behalf of respondent no. 10. L.P.A no. 640 of 2009 arises out of an order dated 31.07.2007 in C.W.J.C No. 861 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, the writ application of respondent no. 10 as against the order dated 20.08.2006 cancelling his residential certificate dated 15.05.2007 was dismissed. L.P.A no. 843 of 2009 arises out of an order dated 01.04.2009 in Civil Review no. 181 of 2007, whereby and whereunder, prayer of the appellants for reviewing the order dated 31.07.2007 in C.W.J.C No. 861 of 2007 has been rejected. Mr. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of appellant in both 3 these cases has primarily stressed on the aspect that as the aforesaid residential certificate was cancelled at the behest of the appellant, he was a necessary party in the connected writ application being C.W.J.C No. 861 of 2007 filed by respondent no. 10. To that extent he has also cited the earlier order passed by this court in his writ application directing the authority to hold inquiry into the residential certificate issued to respondent no. 10. In our considered opinion, L.P.A No. 640 of 2009 is not maintainable in view of the fact that no leave has been sought by the appellant to assail the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge in the writ application of respondent no. 10, wherein, he was not even impleaded as a party to the proceedings. Moreover, learned Single Judge has gone into the aspect, that the requirement of residential certificate for grant of a petroleum outlet by Indian Oil Corporation was confined to a very limited inquiry as with regard to residing at a relevant place continuously for a long time where he would also reside in future. The 4 learned Single Judge in that context has held that:- “For issuance of residential certificate, it is not at all necessary that the place concerned be the native place of that person. Documents furnished by the petitioner was sufficient for proving his claim that he is continuously for a considerable long period is residing at that place.” In fact, learned Single Judge had drawn satisfaction about the correctness of such residential certificate earlier issued in favour of respondent no. 10 by looking into the documents of immovable property owned and possessed by respondent no. 10 and had thereafter recorded that there were sufficient evidence in support of the claim of respondent no. 10 for issuance of such residential certificate. In our considered opinion, the nature of the certificate required for the purpose of grant of petroleum outlet and the order of cancellation of such residential certificate giving no inkling of the same being based on a complaint filed by the appellant, the writ application of 5 respondent no. 10 could not have been thrown over board only on the ground of non impleadment of appellant as a party to his writ application. There is a clear distinction in law between a necessary party and a proper party and even if the contention of the appellant is accepted that he was a proper party, this Court in view of the fact that in the writ application filed by the appellant impleading respondent no. 10 as respondent no. 4 therein in which no notice was ever issued to him and therefore he had no reason to know about the impugned order being a product of the complaint filed by the appellant, his non impleadment could not have made the writ application of respondent no. 10 not maintainable. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter when raised again by the appellant in the review application has been gone into with greater detail and learned Single Judge in the order has rightly recorded that the order cancelling the residential certificate dated 20.08.2006 having been passed by the Sub-divisional Officer without considering the relevant 6 document of respondent no. 10 and that too in his absence, could not have been sustained. Today, we are also informed that pursuant to the direction of this court respondent no. 10 has already been allotted the petrol pump some three years back and he is running the same after making a lot of investment. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any right was created in the appellant only on account of his being serial no. 2 in the panel on the basis of which the letter of intent was also never issued to him. That being so, we do not find any merit even in the two appeals which are accordingly dismissed. Ranjan ( T. Meena Kumari,J) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)