V > ~ '2-3-Z3 IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT O^CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITION (C.) N0. v^> OF 2011 PETITIQNERS \a^4 ^ ^.•i^^> c, ^K^ y ^*' .<• ^'./' RESPONDENTS / 1. Birendra (Virendra) Kumar Verma, S/o Late Shir Kejuram Verma, aged about 51 years, R/o Village Saragon/Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 2. ^ Ramkrishan Dewangan, S/o Shri Govind Ram Dewangan, aged about 37 years, R/o Village Saragaon, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1.'' Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (Government of India Enterprise) Through: It's Managing Director, Having registered office at 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 2.' General Manager (EZ), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshed Ji Tata Road, Mumbai (Maharashtra) 3. Regional Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Raipur Retain Region, IInd Floor, Madina Manzil, Medical College Road, Raipur (C.G.) n!i];B3it>!(S!S! :[!'3:i--~rn- 4. Aanchalik Adhikari, Purvi Aanchal, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6 Church Lane, Kolkata 5. Ramkhilawan Sharma, S/o Dhanush Sharma, aged about 51 years, R/o New Shanti Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Kt\ l! "Is ':SVSSk K "•-• •:Ai-;^^., ^ -i^^-pK^^ '7%iy' '"Ify" \\ .. 1 -%• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.596 OF 2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Birendra (Virendra) Kumar Verma & Another Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4. Shri Satyendra Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 2nd day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counselforthe parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner challenges the setection of respondent No.5 as Retail Outlet Dealer by the respondent authorities vide order dated 7-1-2011. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 submits that one Divya Verma has made a complaint under the provisions of clause 19 (a) of the prescribed guidelines to the authorities in respect of selection of respondent No.5, which is pending consideration. Under the provisions of law, the Letter of Intent (Lol) is not granted till the complaint is disposed of. Accordingly, the same has not been granted to the respondent No.5 till date. Since the complaint is pending consideration before the authorities, as aforestated, this Court may not interference at this stage in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the experience of the petitioner is that the authorities never consjdered the representation of the petitioner properly. 3'-.\. ^): 5. Be that as it may, if there is a provision under the guidelines to file a complaint directly to the authorities and the issue of selection of respondent No.5 is under consideration on the complaint of Divya Verma, there is no reason that parallel proceedings be initiated in the High Court and that too under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed, as the alternative remedy is available under the provisions of dause 19 (a) of the Retail Outlet Dealership Selection Guidelines. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to put forward his case also either by way of complaint or in the complaint filed by Divya Verma for consideration of his grievances before the authorities concerned. The authorities are accordingly directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner also, if a representation or application is made within a period of fortnight from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order. 7. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- _ . , SatiAK.AS°ihotrl Gowri 2>-