IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.724 of 2006 1. Arvind Kumar Singh, son of Yogi Nand Singh, resident of village Semaria, P.O. Barhara, P.S. Barhara, District Bhojpur 2. Vinod Kumar Singh, son of Awadh Sharan Singh, resident of village Dhusariya, P.O. Babura, P.S. Barhara, District Bhojpur .,.. Petitioners Versus 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Marketing Division, Patna Division Office, Patna. 2. The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Maurya Lok Complex, Dak Bunglow, Patna- 800001.. 3. Sri Birendra Singhm, son of late Bhuneshwar Singh, resident of village Barhara, P.O. Barhara, District Bhojpur 4. Sri Prakash Pandey, son of Shri Satyendra Prasad Pandey, resident of village Barka Lauhar, P.O. Farna, District Bhojpur 5. Mithilesh Kumar, son of Mukhram Ray, resident of village + P.O. Barhara, District Bhojpur. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioners : M/s Pranav Kumar, Ram Hriday Prasad & Lalan Kumar, Advocates For Respondents no.1&2: Mr. K. D. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate For Respondents no.3,4&5: None ------ 03/ 13.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent-Indian Oil Corporation and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging order dated 01.12.2005, by which respondent no.3 was selected for Kisan Seva Kendra of Indian Oil Corporation (open category) for location Barhara in the district of Bhojpur and for directing the authorities to appoint the petitioners for the same location and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said private respondent was not fit for the said appointment as he did not fulfil the prescribed requirements, whereas, the petitioners fulfilled all the requirements. He further stated that inspite of legal 2 notices sent to the respondents, no heed was paid to the claim of the petitioners and then they were constrained to file this writ petition. 4. From the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that questions of fact are involved in the instant case and hence a grievance redressal mechanism has been provided in the advertisement itself, according to which complaint could have been filed by any person aggrieved by the action of the authorities, but in the instant case there is nothing to show that any complaint had been filed by the petitioners before the said authority. Sending legal notice cannot be equated with complaint as after filing of complaint steps as provided have to be taken for redressal of such complaint. Thus, it appears that the petitioners without adopting the prescribed procedure have filed this writ petition. Furthermore, in the writ petition no interim relief for stay of the operation of the impugned order had been sought for nor any urgency had been shown by the petitioners to get the writ petition listed early and in the said process a period of more than five hears have lapsed. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that the reliefs claimed by the petitioners are absolutely frivolous and misconceived, which cannot be allowed by this Court and, accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)