IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15745 of 2011 Sunil Kumar, aged about 27 years, Son of Shri Siya Ram Singh, Resident of Village - Narhat, P.O. + P.S. - Narhat, District – Nawadah. ….Petitioner. Versus 1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director 2. The Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 3. The Territorial Manager (LPG), Patna Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Fatuha Industrial Area, Fatuha, District – Patna. 4. Sunil Kumar S/O Sri Siya Ram Singh R/O Village- Narhat, P.O. + P.S.- Narhat, District – Nawadah. 5. Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Nageshwar Singh R/O Village - Narhat, P.O. + P.S.-Narhat, District – Nawadah. ….Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Corporation : Mr. Madhuresh Kumar, Advocate. -------- 03/ 21.10.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- a. For issuance of a writ/s, order/s, direction/s in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent BPCL to fix a fresh date for draw of lots for selection of Rajiv Gandhi LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Narhat, District-Nawadah amongst the petitioner and respondent no.5 and after declaration of the draw of lots, issue the letter of allotment to the winner of draw of lots after making all the necessary formalities as per the terms of the advertisement. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ holding and declaring that respondent no.4 does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the advertisement as the respondent no.4 has no land on the date of application for construction of godown freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road, Public Road or Private Road of the respondent no.4 connecting to the public road and as such the candidature of respondent no.4 should be cancelled - 2 - by the respondent BPCL. c. For holding and declaring the draw of lots held on 03.08.2011 as illegal in view of the fact that the persons (Respondent no.4) who was not eligible to apply for selection of RGGLV has also been allowed to participate in the draw of lots and in such draw of lots he (respondent no.4) has been declared the winner. d. For issuance of any other relief/s for which the petitioner is entitled in the eye of law and in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the aforesaid work tenders were invited and petitioner along with respondent nos. 4 and 5 applied whereafter draw of lots were held in which respondent no.4 was succeeded. He further submits that subsequently he learnt that respondent no.4 did not hold the requisite qualification for the aforesaid work and hence he filed an objection before the Territorial Manager (LPG), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Patna (respondent no.3) and the said application is pending. Hence, he claimed that until the said objection is decided no importance can be given to the aforesaid draw of lots and hence fresh draw of lots is required between the petitioner and respondent no.5. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and its authorities submits that this writ petition is premature as field verification is being done in which the objection raised by the petitioner and the validity of the claim of respondent no.4 will also be seen and only thereafter any step will be taken and necessary order will be passed in that regard. 5. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is - 3 - disposed of with a direction to the respondent-Corporation and its authorities not to issue letter of intent to any of the persons unless the field verification is completed and the matter regarding objection of the petitioner is decided by the authority. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)