IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15561 of 2010 OM PRAKASH KUMAR, S/O SHRI NAGENDRA SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE, P.O. & P.S. MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI, PIN 843 332 ----PETITIONER Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 2.THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020 3.THE DIVISIONAL GENERAL MANAGER, EAST ZONE THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 10 INDUSTRIES HOUSE, CAMAK STREET, KILKATA-01 4.THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., PATNA, L.P.G. REGION, 6TH FLOOR, LOKNAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-01 5.MR.SATYAJEET KUMAR, S/O SHREE CHANDRASHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. KUWARI-MADAN, PS MAJORGANJ, DISTRICT SITAMARHI--------------------------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner :M/S P.K.Jaipuriyar,Anshuman Jaipuriyar, Advocates For the Union of India:Mr.Satish Kumar Singh,Advocate For the H.P.C.L. :Mr.Dr.Pankaj, Advocate ------ 2. 22.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and learned Central Government Counsel. The petitioner along with private respondent No.5 and others were applicants for L.P.G. distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) of the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at Majorganj in the district of Sitamarhi on the basis of advertisement dated 17.10.2009 issued in daily newspaper. On the draw 2 of lots respondent No.5 emerged successful. The petitioner has filed a complaint before the Senior Regional Manager stating that the respondent No.5 is not a resident of Majorganj, but the authorities instead of considering the complaint in terms of Clause 19 of the Manual for Selection of RGGLV have merely stated by the letter dated 17.6.2010 that verification of the documents supplied by the successful candidate would be made during the field verification and physical verification and thereafter proper action would be taken and the complaint of the petitioner was dropped. On a consideration of the aforesaid Manual as also the brochure for selection of RGGLV it is evident that the complaint received against the selection of RGGLV should be investigated on the basis of the documents supplied by the complainant. The authorities of the respondent Corporation are obliged to act in terms of the Clause 19 of the Manual and they cannot drop the proceeding stating that the matter would be verified during field verification and physical verification. In the above circumstances, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to 3 consider the complaint of the petitioner according to Clause 19 of the Manual for selection of RGGLV. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/