IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2259 of 2008 Lal Mani Singh son of Late Pitamber Singh, resident of Village-Sanhauli P.S.-Sanhauli, District-Khagaria at present C/o-Janandan Singh at Bakhari Bazar P.S-Bakhari, District-Begusarai. …….Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delahi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Marketing Division through Chief Divisional Manager, Patna Divisional Office, Ashiyana Chamber 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna. 3. The Chief Divisional Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation(Marketing Divison), Ashiyana Chamber 3rd Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna-1. 4. The Dealer Selection Board, Patna-II, C/O-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vatikamkunj Road, Industrial Estate Road, Patna-10. 5. Sri. Radha Krishna Prasad Singh, son of Late Mahesh Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Chaghra, P.S-Bakhari, District-Begusarai. ………Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Dhruv Narayan Singh, Adv. : Mr. Bijay Kumar Singh, Adv. For the B.P.C.L. : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Adv. ------------ 02. 04.03.2009 In the year 2000, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, a government of India undertaking advertised for a site for selecting retail dealership in petroleum products. Enquiries and investigations having been made a panel of successful candidates was made in which petitioner was placed at number 2. At that time there were large scale reports of irregularities all over the country in matters of selection and allotment of petroleum dealership. Ultimately the Apex Court - 2 - constituted a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Agrawal, retired Judge of the Supreme Court who enquired into all such selections. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the inquiries therein the said Justice Agrawal recommended that so far as petitioner’s dealership is concerned, the first empanelled candidate was wrongly empanelled. The consequence was that petitioner became the first empanelled candidate. This was in the year 2007. Petitioner then represented to the Oil Company. In the meantime, petitioner on basis of the interim report of Justice Agrawal Committee had been representing to the Oil Company for issuance of letter of intent in his favour. After the final order of the Apex Court as noticed above which was passed in November, 2008, the Oil Company has decided to rescind the tender notice itself and has issued a fresh tender notice. It is this action that is under challenged. Having heard the parties. In my view, no malafide can be attributed to the action of the respondent Corporation. No doubt petitioner has been awarded all along for the dealership but as would be apparent from the fact, the dealership was to be established in the year 2000 and we are now in the year 2009. Economic conditions and greater competition available of sites and persons would now be - 3 - available relevant for the present and as such proceeding with the old advertisement of almost a decade back does not apparently make commercial sense though it may here in some ways that the petitioner has anxiously waited for letter of intent for almost a decade. There being no malafide in the matter. The decision of the Corporation does not call for interference. Petitioner would be at liberty to participate in the fresh tender and could at best be entitled to some sympathetic consideration if all other matters remain the same as per law available. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is thus disposed of at this stage. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)