IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18127 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar S/O Indradeo Prasad Resident Of Hajipur, Ward No.- 20, P.O.+P.S.- Khagaria, District- Khagaria …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The District Magistrate,Khagaria 2. The District Magistrate, Khagaria 3. The Additional Collector(District Revenue Section), Khagaria 4. The Circle Officer, Gogari, Khagaria 5. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Having Its Registered Office At 17, Jamshedur Tata Road, Mumbai Through Its Managing Director 6.Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Having Its Registered Office At 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, 400020 7. The Senior Regional Manager, Begusarai Retail Regional Office- C/O H.P.C.L. Barauni Terminal, Nh-31, At & P.O. Papraur, Begusarai(Bihar) 8. The Deputy General Manager- Ncz, Begusarai Retail Regional Office- C/O H.P.C.L. Barauni Terminal, Nh-31, At & P.O. Papraur, Begusarai(Bihar) 9. Sarvesh Kumar S/O Late Satyendra Narayan Yadav Resident Of Khataha(Navtolia), P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria 10. Awadhesh Kumar S/O Bindeshwari Singh Resident Of Village- Pasraha, P.O.- Pasraha, P.S.- Pasraha, District- Khagaria …. Respondents ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate & Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the HPCL : Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, A.A.G. 10 & Mr. Sanjay Prasad,A.C.toA.A.G.10 ----------- 02/ 11.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and learned counsel for private respondent no.9. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 19.09.2011, issued under the signature of the Senior Manager, as communicated to the petitioner by Senior Regional Manager, Begusarai Retail Regional Office, Hindustan 2 Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as `the Corporation’ for the sake of brevity), by which the candidature of the petitioner, who was the first empanelled candidate in the provisional merit list dated 08.02.2011 for location NH 31 within ten kilometers from Maheshkhunt More towards Naugachhia in the district of Khagaria was cancelled. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that the impugned order has been issued on the ground that the petitioner had been guilty of willfully giving wrong information and the complaint against him established the same in exercise of power under Clause 18 of the Dealership Application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner had qualified for being appointed as a retail outlet dealer for the aforesaid location, but his claim was rejected merely on the basis of a frivolous complaint. It was also stated that out of the three plots offered by the petitioner in his application, the entire area of 19 kathas 10 dhurs was situated in one plot no. 542 and hence the petitioner was rightly placed at the top of the merit list and settlement should have been made in his favour. In this connection, he placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Vinod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy, reported in 2003(4) PLJR (SC) 175. 5. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the petitioner offered 19 kathas 10 dhurs of land of plot nos. 541, 542 and 543, situated in village Jamalpur on the basis of lease deed 3 dated 02.07.2010 from the owner Shri Rupesh Kumar. However, during investigation it was found that in partition lands from plots no. 541, 542 and 543 were also given to other family members and hence the said lessor did not own the entire lands of the said plots. It was also found that the lessor does not have possession of plots no. 541 and 543 as per the admission made in the documents submitted by the petitioner, whereas, plot no. 542 was also not in possession of the petitioner or his lessor as is confirmed by the Additional Collector, Khagaria, because all the aforesaid lands had already been acquired for the purposes of N.H.-31. It was also found that the statement of the petitioner was not only against the facts but was also contradictory to his own lease deed and other documents. 6. Although the cancellation of land possession certificate issued by the Additional Collector was set aside by this Court and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, the fact remains that the issues were not finally decided in favour of the petitioner and in any view of the matter the lands having been acquired for N.H.-31 and the facts having not been brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioner in that regard in his application of offer, this Court does not find the impugned action taken by the authorities against the petitioner as unjustified. 7. So far the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in case of K. Vinod Kumar (supra) is concerned, the same is also not relevant and justified as the fact of that case is completely different to the issues involved in the instant matter and hence it is not at all applicable to 4 this case. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J.)