IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1647 of 2008 Decided on : June 17, 2010 Surinder Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner is resident of Nadaun area of Hamirpur District. He has filed this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 not to proceed with the interviews, pursuant to advertisement dated 18th September, 2006, Annexure P-11, for appointment of LPG Distributor for Nadaun area. 2. The ground, on which the aforesaid direction has been sought, is that the advertisement, as per criteria Annexure P-12, was required to be got published in two daily Newspapers, one English and one Vernacular, having wide circulation in the area, where the distribution centre is to be located, but in this case this condition had not been complied with, inasmuch as advertisement was not got Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… published in an English daily Newspaper, having wide circulation in the area of Nadaun Sub Division of Hamirpur District. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Admittedly, the advertisement was got published in a Newspaper, known as Himachal Times, which is published from Dehradun. According to a certificate of District Public Relations Officer, Hamirpur, copy Annexure P-13, which is dated 25th August, 2008, Himachal Times had never been in circulation in the area of Hamirpur District. Respondents have submitted a communication, addressed to one of its functionaries, by the Circulation Manager of Himachal Times, per which total number of copies of the Paper printed in the month of September, 2006 was 59500. As per this letter, the Paper has circulation in Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh. Reference has been made hereinabove to the number of copies printed in the month of September, 2006, because the advertisement, Annexure P-11, was published in the said Newspaper in the month of September, 2006. Communication Annexure R-2, relied upon by the respondents, also indicates that the Paper does not have wide circulation in Himachal Pradesh. 5. It is only the petitioner who is aggrieved by the omission on the part of respondents No.2 and 3 to get the advertisement circulated in an English paper, having wide …3… circulation in the area. Nobody else has come forward with a grievance similar to that of the petitioner. Advertisement consists of voluminous material, occupying space of two full pages of a full-size Newspaper, which is clear from Annexure P-11, itself. 6. Taking into consideration the abovestated position, the present Writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to accept the application of the petitioner, for appointment as Distributor, if such an application is made by him within 20 days from today and to consider that application alongwith other applications, which they might have received, pursuant to aforesaid advertisement Annexure P-11. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, as having become infructuous. June 17, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J