IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.913 of 2011 RITA KUMARI W/O LATE SRI SANJAY KUMAR, R/O MOHALLA NAHRUNAGAR, GOBARWAHI, P.S. MUZAFFARPUR SADAR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR, PIN – 842001……………………………………............PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DY. COLLECTOR, THE LAND REFORMS, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, G – 9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI -400051. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED G – 9 ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400051. 6. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA – 800001. 7. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 5TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA – 800001. 8. THE SR. AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. MARKETING DIVISION, EASTERN REGION, SHAHI BHAWAN, EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA-800001 ………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal,Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Advocate. For private respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Advocate. ----------- 07/ 18.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging letter dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-6) issued by Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited by which the application for award of Indane Distributorship of Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Muzaffarpur had been rejected. - 2 - 3. This case has a chequered history. An advertisement was published in daily newspaper, namely ‘Hindustan’ on 19.01.2009 (Annexure-2) by which application was invited for appointment of L.P.G. Distributors in the State of Bihar for 41 places in which Muzaffarpur was at serial no.12. The petitioner applied for dealership at Muzaffarpur showing her land to be within the urban limits of Muzaffarpur as per the certificate issued by the authority concerned. However, vide order dated 12.03.2010 (Annexure-3) the Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited cancelled the candidature of the petitioner on the ground inter alia that the land offered for show-room was not within the municipal limits of Muzaffarpur. 4. Against the said order, petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.13122 of 2010 which was disposed of by a Bench of this court vide order dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure-5) with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with all the relevant documents within three weeks meeting the grounds given in the order of rejection dated 12.03.2010 and the authorities of the respondent Corporation were directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of filing of the said representation by a speaking order after due verification of the facts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in view of the aforesaid order of this court, the petitioner filed a fresh representation on 07.09.2010 and the said representation was rejected by the authority concerned by a speaking order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-6) on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner for - 3 - show-room was outside the municipal limit of the advertised location, namely Muzaffarpur. 6. Against the said order, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming that although petitioner’s land is not situated within the municipal limits of Muzaffarpur, but it is within the urban limits of the town of Muzaffarrpur as has been certified also by the authorities concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that common man’s interpretation of urban area is not limited only to the areas within the municipalities, but to the larger areas where the town is extended even beyond the municipal limits. He further submits that the authorities have wrongly relied upon clarification dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure-D/1) issued by the authorities of the Corporation with respect to the area in operation and the land for L.P.G. godown as the said clarification was much belated and if there was any confusion, the clarification should have been made in the advertisement itself. He also asserts that issuance of clarification clearly shows that there was something fishy in the matter and it was issued only for the purpose of defeating the claim of the petitioner, specially when in other notices subsequent to the advertisement in question, the municipal area has been clearly specified. 7. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case as well as the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it does not remain in dispute that the order passed by this court in the earlier writ case was dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure-5) whereas the clarification issued by the authorities was dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure- D/1). Thus it is quite apparent that the said clarification has been made - 4 - much prior to the order of this court and hence it cannot be said that the said clarification is merely for the purposes of the case. 8. From the advertisement in question, it is quite apparent that there were three categories which have been specified in the said advertisement, namely urban, urban/rural and rural and they have been specifically clarified in the aforesaid clarification letter dated 03.02.2010 (Annexure-D/1). This shows that as per the said documents the area connected with any town beyond the municipal limits cannot be urban rather it may be urban/rural. Admittedly the petitioner’s land is not situated within the municipal limits and hence it cannot be deemed to be urban within the meaning of the advertisement in question. 9. In the said circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order of the respondents authorities. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N.Hussain, J.)