IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4439 of 2011 ----------- Ajit Kumar Choudhary, son of Shri Nitya Nand Choudhary, resident of village Gopalpur, Police Station Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur at present residing at Mohalla S.C. Banarjee Lane Adampur, P.S. Kotwali, District Bhagalpur. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through its Secretary Petroleum Department, Government of India, New Delhi 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020. 3. Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna 4. Ranjan Singh, son of late Ayodhya Singh, resident of village Gopalpur, P.S. Gopalpur, District Bhagalpur. … Respondents ------ For the Petitioner : M/s R. S. Roy, Sr. Advocate, Binod Kumar Sinha and Abhay Kumar Roy, Advocates. For Respondents no.2 & 3: Dr. Pankaj, Advocate ------ 03/ 04.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging allotment of L.P.G. Gas Agency in favour of respondent no. 4 on 30.11.2010 at Gopalpur, Bhagaldpur and for a direction to the Sr. Divisional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Region, Patna (respondent no. 3) to dispose of the complaint filed by the petitioner on 30.11.2010 (Annexure 4). 3. From the perusal of the records, it transpires that the complaint of the petitioner dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure 4) was disposed of by the respondent-authority concerned vide letter dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure `E’). It also transpires that the respondent- Corporation had also issued letter dated 24.02.2011 (Annexure F) to 2 the petitioner asking him to submit details of allegation with a view to prima-facie substantiate the allegations along with supporting documents, if any, within 30 days of the receipt of the letter, whereafter response of the complaint would be examined by the Corporation and if it was established that the complaint did not have any substance, the complainant would be liable for legal action. It is also apparent that no reply has been sent by the petitioner to the said letter. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere into the matter and the petitioner, if he so likes, may submit details of allegation as required by the Corporation vide order dat6ed 24.02.2011 (Annexure F), which has to be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed with the above said observation. MPS/ ( S. N. Hussain, J. )