IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6554 of 2006 SMT.MANJU DEVI Versus HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. W I T H CWJC No.13138 of 2006 SMT.PRABHAVATI KUMARI Versus W I T H THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS CWJC No. 6590 of 2006 SMT SHWETA KUMAR THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD & ORS ----------------- 05 14.08.2008 In my view, in view of the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. as sworn by the Senior Regional Manager (Retail) in CWJC No. 6554 of 2006 stating in paragraph 5, thereof, that due to the aforesaid advertisement the respondent-Corporation is of the opinion that the dealership for the location Nasriganj, District-Rohtas needs to be totally cancelled and a fresh advertisement with specific details with the location must be given, but, because of the pendency of the writ petition respondent-Corporation has not taken any further action in this respect. I may also note Annexure-7 to the I.A. filed by the petitioner is a letter dated 22.12.2006 of the Corporation, wherein, Senior Regional Manager (Retail) has already informed the petitioner Manju Devi that because of the disputes in matter was enquired into and the advertisement for the location is cancelled and as such he cannot be considered any further. In view of these statements nothing survives in all three writ petitions. They have liberty to apply as and when advertisements are issued. - 2 - The respondent would be at liberty now to communicate the formal orders to the three writ petitioners further individually and the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law to the appropriate Court. Thus, these applications have become infructuous. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J.)