IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 910 of 2010 Rajneesh S/O Sri Virendra Kumar, R/O Village Rohalki Bahadrabad, Tehsil and District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director (Marketing) L.P.G. and two others. … Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. V.K.Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. I.P.Kohli, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2. Date June 11, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take decision on the complaint made by the petition against respondent no. 3 (Annexure-4 to the petition). Further prayer has also been made to call for the record of the applications of the petitioner and respondent no 3 and to examine the marks awarded to the petitioner and respondent no. 3 and to quash the result of selection of respondent no.3. According to the petitioner, in response to the joint advertisement for appointment of LPG distributors in the State of UY.P. and the State of Uttarakhand, published in “Dainik Jagran” on 7-9-2007, the petitioner applied for L.P.G. distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Piran Kaliyar District Haridwar, which is mentioned at Serial No. 65 of the advertisement. The petitioner submitted his application in general category and has enclosed copies of all the required certificates. Ultimately, the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 were also called for interview. The appointment of distributor was to be made on the basis of merit out of the maximum marks of 100 fixed by the respondents. 2 The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 have selected the respondent no.3 for allotment of L.P.G. distributorship, although the respondent no.3 had secured lesser marks than the petitioner. A complaint was made by the petitioner in that regard to the respondents, but no decision so far has been taken thereon. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the ends of justice would be served if a direction is issued to the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take a decision on the complaint of the petitioner ( Annexure No.4 to the petition) within a time bound period. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to take a decision on the application/complaint of the petitioner (Annexure- 4) in accordance with law, expeditiously within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. So far as the relief no.2 in the writ petition sought by the petitioner is concerned, the relief no. 2 is dismissed being premature at this stage. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties by Monday i.e. 14-6-2010, on payment of usual charges. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP