IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11736 of 2010 SHEO NATH PRASAD S/0 late Nathuni Mahto, resident of Mohalla- Gulbighat, P.S. Sultanganj, P.O. Mahendru, Patna.6… Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA. 2. Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The State of Bihar. 4. The District Magistrate, Patna Bihar At + P.O.+ District- Patna. 5. Sr. Regional Manager, Patna, Patna State Office, Retail Region Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th floor, Bunglow crossing Box No.40, Frazer Road, Patna-1 of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6. General Manager (M.O.) North Middle Region Nehru Ankleb Gomati Nagar Lucknow U.P. of Hindustan petroleum Corporation Ltd. 7. The General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Head Office, 17, Jamshedpur Tata Road, Mumbai-20. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, Advocate For the State: Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan For respondent Corporation: Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advoate For Respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, Central Govt. Counsel ----------- 2. 28.7.2010 Heard learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 27.4.2010 issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Patna R.R.O of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, by which he has informed the petitioner that his land measuring 18000 sq.ft. with frontage of 150 ft. and depth of 120 ft. converts to 45.76 mtrs. X 36.57 mtrs. which does not meet the advertised depth of 40 meters. For the said reason his provisional selection as Ist empanelled candidate for the location serial No.34 on N.H.30A within 3 K.M. from Maharani Chowk towards Daniwan, District- Patna has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits - 2 - that the land has been measured by the Circle Amin, who has given report dated 17.4.2010 that the land is 40 M. x 40 M. and it is accordingly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner qualifies under the advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation and a direction should be issued to them to get the land re-measured. This Court finds that the authorities have come to the aforesaid conclusion on the basis of the application filed by the petitioner in which the lease deed of the land in question has also been annexed, which clearly shows that the total area of land is 18000 sq. ft. having length of 150 ft. frontage and 120 ft. depth. That being the position, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the action of the authorities in relying upon the said lease deed and coming to the conclusion that the land of the petitioner does not meet the requirement of the advertisement. There being no merit in the writ application, it is accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )