•^ ,^ ^1 ^by?s^ ^.y^y ^c'y .»" € '^y'" .^'\ ^'v ..-•"" '^•"" IN THE HIGH COURT OF TUDICATURE:CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0 (C) : US^t^ OF 2009 PETITIQNER ^ Atul Rajoria aged 40 yrs, s/o Shri Ram Narayan Rajoria House No B/544, Road No 3, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai, Distt-Durg CG - VERSUS - RESPONDENTS Indian 011 Corporation Limited, Throuph: The Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited IndianOil Bhawan, 2ndfloor, VIPRoad, Telibandha, Raipur (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •^, HIGH CQURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 N0.4588 OF 2009 PETITIONER AtulRajoria Versus RESPQNDENT Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate forthe respondent. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 9th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider thecandidature of the petitioner on merits and award the retail outlet dealership of petrol pump at Kodwa, District Durg, under the category of outstanding sports persons. 3. The petitioner made an application pursuant to the advertisement dated 21-3-2008 (Annexure - P/1) under the category of outstanding sports persons. The candidature of the petitioner was cancelled on the alleged ground of some discrepancy was found in the attested copy of the document and hence ineligible. 4. There is no dispute that the said retail outlet dealership was not ' allotted to any one thereafter. Now the respondent Corporation has again published an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of retail outset dealership at several places including at the relevant place i.e. Kodwa, District Durg. 5. Shri Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent corporation, submits that the petitioner has also made an application pursuant to the said advertisement and his case will be ^fc --2^- \^^/ '^^ft ^ .^^ •^^^^^'-^ Gowri considered in accordance with law on its own merits along with others. 6. In view of foregoing nothing remains in this petition for adjudication, at this stage, as this has become academic/ 7. At this juncture, insistence of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of discrepancy that may be considered even at this stage, as if the petitioner succeeds he may get allotment from the earlier date. 8. , Be thatas it may, the submission of the tearned counsel appearing for the petitioner is purely academic, as there is no seniority like in the service matter. Learned counsel failed to appreciate that in a case like this where nothing survives on facts, the petition became academic and the Court should refrain from entertaining such petitions.(See Basheshar Nath vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another1, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal vs. Rajiv Gandhi2, Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Govt. of India and others vs. Cricket Association of Bengal and others3, State of Manipur and others vs. Chandam Manihar Singh4, Arnit Das vs. State of Bihar5 and Prakash Singh Badal and another vs. State ofPunjab and others6). 9. In the result, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. ^ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1AIR 1959 SC 149 21987(Supp)SCC93 3 (1995)28cc 161 4 (1999) 7 SCC 503 5 (2001)78cc 657 6 (2007) 1 SCC1