IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18244 of 2008 SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH SON OF SRI LAL BABU SINGH RESIDENT OF AZAD COLONY, MARIUPUR, P.S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (R.S.) OFFICE, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, DAK BUNGLOW CHOWK, PATNA. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, I.O.C. (MARKETING DIVISION), BIHAR STATE OFFICE, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF DIVISIONAL MANAGER, I.O.C. (MARKETING DIVISION), DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PATNA. 4. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, LOK NAYAK JAI PRAKASH BHAWAN, 6TH FLOOR, DAK BUNGALOW CHOWK, PATNA. 5. GENERAL MANAGER, I.O.C. DAK BUNGALOW CHOWK, PATNA. 6. CHIEF MANAGER, I.O.C. PATNA. 7. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (M.D.) I.B.P. TERMINAL, P.O. BARAUNI OIL REFINERY, DISTRICT BEGUSARAI. 8. RAMESHWAR KUMR AND COMPANY, BAIKUNTHPUR, TELIA KURHANI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. 9. RAMESHWAR KUMAR SON OF NOT KNOWN RESIDENT OF BAIKUNTHPUR TELIYA KURHANI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad. For the I.O.C. :- M/S. Kali Das Chatterji & Amlesh Kumar Varma. ----- 2 11/05/2010 Petitioner states in the writ application that the respondent Indian Oil Corporation Limited has ignored the direction of the L.P.A. Bench in its order dated 21.05.2008 - 2 - passed in L.P.A. No. 179 of 2008. The order in question is annexure-12. Reason for the first round of litigation which traveled upto the Division Bench was non issuance of Letter of Intent in favour of the petitioner by the Oil Company despite his name being placed at number 1 in the merit list. From the pleadings and the materials on record it emerges that the reason why Indian Oil Corporation was not acting upon the recommendation of the Selection Committee was because the petitioner’s father was a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the policy bars a close relation like father and son from obtaining a dealership. Since father of the petitioner was already a dealer, the petitioner could not be appointed a dealer under the Indian Oil Corporation. Thereafter it seems that an offer was made and the Company was intimated that the father of the petitioner is willing to resign or has resigned from the partnership and that resignation ought to be accepted and dealership awarded to the petitioner. The stand, however, of the Oil Corporation is that there is no final evidence or proof that the resignation of - 3 - the father of the petitioner from the dealership/partnership was accepted by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and till the relationship was severed between the Corporation and the father of the petitioner, the relationship clause will come in the way of the petitioner from claiming the dealership despite selection. Petitioner filed a detailed representation to the Indian Oil Corporation coupled with the decision of the L.P.A. Bench but no decision has been taken or communicated to the petitioner in this regard. Learned counsel representing Indian Oil Corporation categorically states that the dealership had to be commissioned because there was failure on the part of the petitioner to establish by authentic evidence that his father had no dealership in existence of any other Oil Company. The petitioner had prayed for time to produce such evidence and the letter of acceptance of resignation from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited but it was never produced despite indulgence or time granted in this regard. The Company has thereafter gone ahead and issued letter of intent in favour of number 2 empanelled candidate. - 4 - Reason for denial of dealership to the petitioner is prohibited in the policy of close relation owning dealership. S.ince the petitioner failed to satisfy the respondents about the acceptance and resignation of his father from the H.P.C.L. dealership, the Company has denied him the benefit of selection and number 2 i.e. the private respondent has already been awarded and the dealership commissioned. Failure to take advantage of the observation of the Division Bench is on the petitioner or his father. Indian Oil Corporation cannot be faulted in this regard. There is no merit in this writ application. It is dismissed as such. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)