IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.3405 of 2009 ASHARFI PRASAD YADAV S/o Late Ram Prasad R/o Village Ram Nagar, P.S.Chapra(M), District Saran at Chapra-------------------------------petitioner . Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India 2.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman Mr.Sarthak Pehuria, Scope Complex, 4th Core 2nd , 7th Floor, Institution Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3.General Manager, Mr.A.N.Jha, Indian Oil Corporation, Lok Nayak Jay Prakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dakbunglow Chowk, Patna 4.Sh.A.K.Datta, Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Shahi Bhawan, Exhibition Road, Patna 5.Hira Lal Prasad S/o Late Dhanraj Sah R/o Ajauna, Gola Road, Mauna Road, P.S. Chapra (T), District Saran at Chapra--------------------------------------opp.parties ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Anurag Saurav, Advocate For the O.P.Nos.2 to 4:M/S Kali Das Chatterji,Amlesh Kr.Verma, Advocates ---- 3. 04.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. The petitioner claims deliberate and wilful violation of the order of this Court dated10.7.2008. By the said order this Court had disposed of two writ petitions, namely, C.W.J.C.No.1602 of 2006 filed by the opposite party No.5 herein, namely, Hiralal Prasad who was at serial No.1 in the panel prepared, and C.W.J.C.No.2150 of 2005 filed by the petitioner of this case. The petitioner was the second named in the panel prepared for award of LPG distributionship for Chapra in Saran District. This Court had directed while allowing the 2 writ petition filed by Hiralal Prasad that the authorities of the Corporation should take a final decision in his case within a period of four months from that date. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was directed that in case the authorities decide to cancel the award of distributionship in favour of Hiralal Prasad the petitioner would be entitled to be considered. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the rejection of the case of Hiralal Prasad by the opposite parties the petitioner’s case has not been considered. In the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties, Officers of the Indian Oil Corporation, it is stated that the candidature of Hiralal Prasad as No.1 was cancelled by the Corporation on 12.1.2009 which was immediately challenged by him by filing C.W.J.C.No.1208 of 2009 and in the said case notice was issued against the petitioner also to appear fixing 4.3.2009 as the next date of hearing at the admission stage. The other stand is that the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 30.11.2009 and thereafter L.P.A.No.54 of 2010 was filed by Hiralal Prasad which is pending before this Court. 3 Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that since the case of Hiralal Prasad has remained sub judice before this Court the case of the petitioner as the second candidate in the panel has not been taken up by the Corporation. It is also stated in the show cause that, as a matter of fact, complaints had been received against both the petitioner and Hiralal Prasad. The complaint against the petitioner was also investigated and report was submitted on 8.1.2007 in which a finding was recorded that the selection process had been vitiated because the selection committee had wrongly awarded marks in contravention of the policy guidelines dated 29.9.2003 to the petitioner and there was violation of the guidelines with respect to the 4th and 5th ranked candidates also and thus in terms of the policy guidelines dated 6.1.2005 when the selection process is vitiated the selection results are to be scrapped and a fresh interview held among the eligible candidates who had appeared in the earlier interview. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that although these matters ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court while it was disposing of the two writ 4 petitions by a common order dated 10.7.2008 but since the main issue being considered was raised in the writ petition of Hiralal Prasad, hence inadvertently the issue of investigation of the complaint against the present petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Court. On a consideration of the statements made in the show cause filed on behalf of the opposite parties, this Court does not find that any attempt has been made by them to deliberately and wilfully violate the order under contempt of this Court dated 10.7.2008. In fact this Court by the said order had merely directed the authorities to consider the case of this petitioner on cancellation of the candidature of Hiralal Prasad, and the same cannot be read as a direction to straightaway award him the distributorship irrespective of anything else against him. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) Spal/