IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.988 of 2008 RAM BABU SINGH S/O RAM CHANDRA SINGH R/O VILLAGE- IBRAHIMPUR, P.S.-PAHARPUR, P.O. RAI KARARIYA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI. 2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 17 JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020 3. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RETAIL, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 8, S.V. MARG, MUMBAI-40001 4. GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED 6 CHURCH LANE, KOLKTA-700001. 5. SENIOR MANAGER, NETWORK PLANNING (AAYOJNA), HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, EAST ZONE, 6, CHURCH LANE, KOLKATA-700001. 6. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-800001 7. CHAIRMAN OF SELECTION COMMITTEE, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 6TH FLOOR, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA-800001. ********* For the Appellant :- Mr. Mritunjay Pd. Singh II, Advocate For the Respondent No. 6 :- Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate ********* 3 19/01/2009 Reg: I. A. No. 7458 of 2008 This application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands allowed. We have heard counsel for the appellant on the merit of - 2 - the appeal. Writ petitioner- appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 19.9.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1620 of 2006 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Writ petitioner- appellant offered his candidature for settlement of retail outlet of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, in response to the advertisement made by it. However, before any settlement could be made, it was found that there was defect in the advertisement and while inviting offers various circulars on the issue were not taken note of. Accordingly, it cancelled the advertisement and decided to issue fresh advertisement. This was questioned by the writ petitioner by filing the writ application, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr. Mirtunjay Prasad Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the advertisement was cancelled on illegal grounds. From the order of the learned Single Judge, it is evident that reasons existed for canceling the advertisement. It is not the case of the petitioner that any other person has been appointed as the retail outlet dealer. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation after the advertisement came to the conclusion that the advertisement made was defective and accordingly, cancelled the same with which the learned Single Judge has concurred. - 3 - We do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal stands dismissed in limine. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin