IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1509 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14619 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 7158 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1509 of 2011 ====================================================== Smt. Manorma Devi W/o Shri Nageshwar Prasad Yadav Resident of Mohalla Naglok Lallu Pokhar, P.S.-Kasim Bazar, District Munger. .... .... Appellant Versus 1. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, through its Chairman and Mmanaging Director, having its Registered Office at 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. 2. The Dy. General Manager (North Central Zone), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Plot No. 1, Nehru enclave, Gomati Nagar, Lacknow, Uttar Pradesh. 3. The Senior Regional Manager (Retain) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna. 4. Smt. Sarita Sahu W/o Pappu Sao Resident of Mohalla-Chotti Keshopur, P.S. Jamshedpur, District-Munger. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mrs. Madhuri Lata, Advocate For the Respondent No.3: Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Patna High Court LPA No.1509 of 2011 (3) dt.20-10-2011 2 / 2 2 3. 20-10-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 28th June 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 14619 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The subject matter of dispute is the award of a retail dealership of petroleum products by the respondent M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) in the Telia Talab area in the town of Munger and Nauagarhi More. The appellant-writ petitioner claims that the land offered by her was in accordance with the advertisement and she should have been allotted the dealership. The respondent Corporation asserts that none of the applicants offered the land in the above referred Telia Talab area. Thus, the location of the land offered by the appellant is a disputed question; that cannot be decided in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned advocate Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth has appeared for the Corporation. He has submitted that pursuant to the impugned direction the Corporation has re-advertised the dealership in question. In view of the aforesaid development also, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. We may note that the appellant may participate in the fresh proceeding pursuant to the above referred advertisement dated 22nd September 2011. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)