IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.744 of 2008 1.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD through its Chairman, having its Registered Office at Ali Javan Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. ………Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1.RAMBHA SINHA W/O Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, R/O Parauli, P.O & P.S, Basantpur, Distt-Siwan……..Petitioner-Respondent 1st Party 2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Petroleum & Natural Gas Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi………Respondent-Respondent 2nd Party. with LPA No.745 of 2008 1.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD through its Chairman, having its Registered Office at Ali Javan Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Eastern Region, Indane Area Office, Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna. ………Respondents/Appellants. Versus 1. AJAY KUMAR SINGH S/O Shri Badan Singh, R/O village Dandpur, P.S Dandpur, Distt-Saran, Bihar. ……….Petitioner- Respondent 1st Party 2. The Union of India through the Secretary, Petroleum & Natural Gas Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi………Respondent-Respondent 2nd Party. ----------- 7. 21-01-2010 These appeals being interconnected and interlinked were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. The writ petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court of Article 226 of the Constitution of India forming the subject matter of CWJC No. 11985 & 11447 of 2006 for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the Indian Oil Corporation, the appellants herein to implement the recommendations of the Petition Committee of the Parliament. The learned single Judge after hearing the 2 learned counsel for the parties has issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to the Indian Oil Corporation to implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Petitions Committee in question. We have heard Mr. K.D.Chatterjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. K.N Choubey, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Abhay Kumar Singh, learned senior Advocate along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Smt. Poonam Singh for the private respondents, Mr. Indrajeet Singh and Mr. Anil Singh for, learned standing counsels for the Union of India in both appeals. We must state without any kind of hesitation that there was a debate for some time that the recommendations of the Petition Committee is binding. However, in course of hearing of the appeals it came to our notice that the Union of India, the second respondent herein had not taken any decision on receipt of the recommendations of the Committee. What has been held by the learned single Judge that the Corporation could not have defied the recommendations. The submission of Mr. Chatterjee is that the Corporation has not received any letter/communication 3 from the Ministry for implementation of the recommendations of the Parliamentary Petition Committee. The Corporation has chosen to interpret the recommendations on its own way. Regard being had to the facts and the issue involved, we would like the concerned department of Union of India to take a decision as regards the recommendations of the Committee so that the stand of the Union of India would be clear to this Court. We are compelled to so observe as the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India is totally silent in this regard and it is difficult to fathom the reason. Thus, we set aside the order of learned single Judge and command the second respondent to take a decision on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Petition Committee within a period of three weeks and intimate the Corporation. If any of the parties is aggrieved by the said decision it is open to them to challenge the same as advised in law. At this juncture, Mr. Chaubey and Mr. Abhay Kr. Singh, senior Advocates for the private respondents submitted that the corporation is proceeding for the allotment 4 of dealership in respect of two locations involved in the appeals. On being asked, Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation stated that the Corporation has not published any advertisement and would not do so till Union of India decides as directed by this Court. In view of the said statements, no order need be passed. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed with the aforesaid directions and the order passed by the learned single Judge is set aside without any order as to costs. perwez (Dipak Misra, C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)