IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.598 of 2010 RENU DEVI, Wife of Sri Subodh Das, resident of Amarpur, P.O. & P.S. Amarpur, District Banka ........Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD through its Managing Director, Regd. Office at G-9, Ali Yadav Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051 (India) 2. The Regional Manager (Marketing Division), Eastern Region, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Begusarai Divisional Office, B-70, Barauni Refinery Township, Begusarai -85117 3. The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Patna Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 3A Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bungalow Road, Patna 4. The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Begusarai Divisional Office, B-70, Barauni Refinery Township, Begusarai -851117 5. Neelam Devi, wife of Prof. Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Mahadeopur, PS Amarpur, District Banka .........Respondents –Respondents ----------- 03- 21/6/2011 Heard Mr. Brishketu Sharan Pandey for the appellant, Mr. K D Chatterjee for respondent no. 1 to 4, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra for respondent no.5. The petitioner of CWJC No. 3955 of 2007 has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature of Patna, and is aggrieved by the order dated 11.2.2010, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the grounds of delay and emergence of parallel rights. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 had issued advertisement which had appeared in the local dailies on 30.4.2005, inviting applications from eligible candidates for grant of dealership for retail outlet of petrol at village Amarpur. 1.6.2005 was the last date for submission of application. The appellant and respondent no.5 2 amongst others were the applicants. After completion of the selection process the interview took place on 20.1.2006, and the result and merit list was published on the same day. The appellant was at sl.no.1, and respondent no.5 was at sl.no.2, of the merit list. Respondent nos. 1 to 4 received a complaint about the validity of the land offered by the appellant for the purpose in question. This led to issuance of a show- cause notice to her. She failed to provide materials at all to the investigating officer to dispel the complaint leading to the impugned order dated 3.7.2006, whereby it was conveyed to her that the competent authority had cancelled her selection for retail outlet dealership at Amarpur. The writ petition was lodged in this court on 28.3.2007, and respondent no.5 commissioned the retail outlet on 31.12.2007. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay in approaching the Court, and also that respondent no.5 has commissioned the retail outlet. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant raises a grievance before this Court that she had never received any show-cause notice, calling her upon to explain the position with respect to validity of her land. We do not find it possible to agree with the same, inter alia, for the reason that the impugned order itself states that “........you were given an opportunity by the investigating officer to produce the valid lease documents for the land offered by you but you could present the same before the investigating officer.” Before we proceed further, we would like to clarify one obvious omission in this part of the order that the vital expression “not” is missing at the relevant place in the order although this inadvertent omission is clear from the investigation 3 report marked Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. However, the intention of the authorities in the communication is quite clear that the appellant had failed to respond to the opportunity offered to her to explain the position. The contention is rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that only a portion of the land offered by her was in dispute to which the authorities did not attach adequate importance. This is an issue of fact which ought to have been raised before the authorities. We would not like to entertain the same in writ jurisdiction, much less in Letters Patent appeal. The contention is rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay. He submits that the impugned order was passed on 3.7.2006, and the writ petition was lodged in this Court on 28.3.2007. The learned counsel for the appellant is partly correct, and partly incorrect in his submission. In one sense, there was no enormous delay. However, delay of 8 to 9 months in a commercial venture like the present one may be of significant consequence. In view of the Pendente Lite developments, the retail outlet was commissioned on 31.12.2007. In other words, parallel rights had emerged in favour of respondent no.5, whereby investment on the part of both respondent nos. 1 to 4, as well as respondent no.5, has had taken place. In such a situation, this Court would be reluctant to deprive respondent no.5 of the parallel rights which has emerged in favour respondent no.5. Indeed more than four years have elapsed since then. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of 4 cancellation. We agree with the order of the learned single Judge. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S K Katriar ) ( Amaresh Kumar Lal ) mrl