IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.975 of 2008 M/S C.L.S.LIMITED, registered office Swapan Lok Building, 20, Salkia School Road, Salkia, Howrah, District-Howrah, Kolkatta (West Bengal) through Anand Narain Singh, Director M/S C.L.S.Limited …. …. Respondent-Appellant Versus 1. M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., having its East Zone registered office 6 Church Lane, Kolkata-700001 through its General Manager. 2. The General Manager, (East Zone) M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., having its East Zone registered office 6 Church Lane, Kolkata-700001. 3. Senior Regional Manager, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna – 800001. 4. The Selection Committee, M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. …. …. Respondents-Respondents 5. RAJ KESHWAR PRASAD son of late Rugan Prasad, resident of Nehru Chowk, P.O. Chapra, District – Saran at Chapra, proprietor M/S R.P. Gas Service. …. …. Petitioner-Respondent 6. Sri Sanjeev Singh, S/o not known to the appellant. 7. Sri Ramji Prasad, S/o not known to the appellant. Both C/o M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna- 800001. 8. The Union of India through the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas through its Secretary. ….. Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the appellant : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate For the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the respondent No.8 : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Central Government Counsel -------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 11th December, 2008 - 2 - The counsel for the appellant submits that the appeal has been filed by the original respondent no.5 aggrieved by the following direction: “In this view of the matter, I think it would be an appropriate for the respondent-corporation to re- valuate the selection process of the dealership in question on the basis of the amended provisions and then re-publish the merit list. This benefit would not arise to any other dealership, in which interviews and merit list has already been prepared.” 2. The aforesaid direction given by the Single Judge admittedly does not affect the case in which interviews and merit list have been prepared. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the appellant that concerning the LPG distributorship for location at Chapra, the merit list has been prepared and the appellant is at serial no.1 in that merit list. He also submits that the interviews have also been held. If that be so, obviously the direction given by the Single Judge to re-valuate the selection process on the basis of the amended provisions and then re-publish the merit list does not arise in appellant’s case. 3. Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid clarification. R. M. Lodha, CJ. Kishore K. Mandal, J. Sunil