IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12280 of 2010 SUDHAKAR JHA, son of late Kuldip Jha, resident of Ward No.19, H.P.O. Suratganj, P.S. Madhubani Town, Police Station and District- Madhubani… Petitioner Versus 1.THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, North Central Zone, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Lucknow. 2. The Senior Regional Manager, Retail, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna…. Respondents --- For the petitioner: Mr. B.K. Choudhary, Advocate For Respondent Corporation: Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate ----------- 2. 4.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2010 passed by the Deputy General Manager, North Central Zone, by which the petitioner has been informed that since his land does not fall within the advertised place, the same was rejected by the Technical Feasibility Committee and the allegations made by him in this regard are without any merit and remain unsubstantiated. The facts of the case are within a very narrow compass. The respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. advertised inviting applications for dealership of Retail Outlet at different places in the State of Bihar including at serial - 2 - No. 71, Khutauna Madhubani road in Bhupatti in the District of Madhubani. The petitioner applied against the same but it was found that his land was not within the advertised location and accordingly, his claim was rejected. On the rejection of his claim, he filed a complaint before the authorities alleging that his land was within the advertised area. The complaint was investigated by the authorities of the respondent Corporation and they came to the conclusion that the advertised location was Khutauna Madhubani road in Bhupatti which implies that the outlet is proposed to be set up at Bhupatti on specified road, whereas the complainant offered land at village Pachrukhi vide lease dated 27.7.2009. For the said reasons, it was found that the land of the petitioner does not fall within the advertised place and the complaint of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 24.4.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the report of the Revenue Karmchari (Annexure- 5) and a letter of the Circle Officer (Annexure-2) in support of his stand that the land of the petitioner also falls on the Khutauna Madhubani - 3 - main road. From a perusal of the aforesaid report and letter, it is evident that the land of the petitioner is situated in revenue village Pachrukhi under Gram Panchayat, Pachrukhi, which is 400 feet south of the border of Bhupatti, although on the Khutauna Madhubani main road. Thus, even the State Revenue Officials have not held that the land of the petitioner is within Bhupatti village rather the said documents support the stand of the respondent authorities that the land of the petitioner is located in a different village. This Court is in agreement with the findings of the respondent authorities and just because the land of the petitioner also falls in a village on Khutauna Madhubani main road adjacent to Bhupatti village, it does not mean that his land qualifies in terms of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner also sought to assail the impugned order dated 24.4.2010 on the ground that without taking into consideration the entire facts and without giving cogent reasons, including the details of khata, khesra, etc. which have not been mentioned - 4 - therein, the same has been passed. The authorities of the respondent Corporation are not expected to write a judgment like a Court of law when they pass their orders. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the facts have been stated in a very clear and concise manner in order to reject the claim of the petitioner. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )