IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8154 of 2010 SANJAY KUMAR, one of the working partner of a firm namely “Hamara Pump,” son of Sri Ganga Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village- Inai, P.S.:- Sheikhpura, District:- Sheikpura. ………..Petitioner. Versus 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED (a Government of India Enterprise) through its General Manager, Registered Office; 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020. 2. The General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (a Government of India Enterprise), 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020. 3. The Dy. General Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (a Government of India Enterprise), North Central Zone, 1 Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Lakhnow- 226010 (UP). 4. The Sr. Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (a Government of India Enterprise), Patna Retail Region, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dak Banglow Chowk, Patna- 800001(Bihar). 5. The District Magistrate (D.M.), Sheikhpura. 6. The Circle Officer, Ariary Circle, District:- Sheikhpura. …….Respondents. For the Petitioner :- Mr. D.K.Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manish Sahay, Advocate. For the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd: - Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate. For the State : - Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha. A.C. to A.C.-3 ----------- 7 09.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for State of Bihar and its authorities and learned counsel for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the decision of Interview Committee dated 09.02.2010 (Annexure- 5) as well as letter dated 03.04.2010 read with letter dated 15.04.2010 (Annexure- 9 series) issued by the Deputy Manager, North Central Zone, HPCL, Lucknow and Senior Regional Manager, (respondent no.s 3 & 4) respectively and for directing the concerned respondents to issue letter of intent with respect to allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership at location Mahuli on Sheikhpura- Ara Road in the District of Sheikhpura as he fulfilled all required criteria, but in spite of that, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the advertisement for allotment of Retail Outlets Dealership was issued on 20.06.2009 (Annexure- 1) in the daily Hindi news paper, namely, “Hindustan” for several places including the place in question at serial no. 110 in which the location was mentioned at Mahuli on Sheikhpura-Ara Road. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner applied for the said item and the Inspection committee gave 97 marks out of 100 against the land of the 3 petitioner whereas to the other applicants zero marks were given as they could not produce any document of title, whereas petitioner’s document of title was produced and this fact was clear from the list (Annexure 5). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also avers that in spite of the aforesaid facts, the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities by the impugned order on the ground that the Interview Committee gave zero mark to all the applicants for two reasons. “A. The Patna Region advertised location, Mahuli on Sheikhpura-Ara Road at Serial No. 110. This implies that the setting up of retail outlet is proposed at Mahuli on specified road. B. The complainant application offered land at Khesra 86 village Bhalua which does not fall in Mauza Mahuli and does not meet advertisement condition.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no Mouza named as Mahuli, rather Mahuli is a place situated at Mahuli Bazar within Mauza Bhalua, hence the said grounds taken by the respondents are 4 completely incorrect. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the advertisement with respect to serial no. 110 thereof had been proposed to be cancelled as name of Mauza was not properly mentioned therein. He further submits that guidelines (Annexure –R/1) for such appointments are prescribed by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited which clearly shows two stages. The first being spot verification in which the petitioner got 97 marks out of 100 marks, whereas the second stage is the Interview Committee and at that stage it was found that there was defect in the advertisement with respect to the required land at serial no. 110 of the said advertisement and hence the applications of all the applicants for that place were rejected as the respondent authorities proposed to cancel the aforesaid advertisement with respect to serial no. 110 and for issuing fresh advertisement, but they could not do so due to the pendency of this writ petition. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court finds force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, as it is quite apparent that admittedly there is no Mauza named as “Mahuli”, rather there is a place named 5 “Mahuli Bazar” which is situated in Mauza Bhalua. Accordingly, the description given at serial no. 110 of the advertisement in question is definitely not complete and clear. 8. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents authorities of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to cancel the aforesaid advertisement in question so far as it relates to serial no. 110 and issue fresh advertisement giving full description of the place where outlet is required i.e., namely, Mahuli Bazar situated at Mauza Bhalua on Seikhpura-Ara Road. The entire process for advertisement and selection must be completed expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, and in that proceeding the application of the petitioner, if filed, must also be considered in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this Court. Bhardwaj ( S.N.Hussain, J.)