IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4318 of 2006 Bidhan Chandra Rai, Son of late Jagarnath Prasad, resident of village – Sareya Ward No. 6, P.S. – Gopalganj, District –Gopalganj. ………. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, New Delhi. 2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through the General Manager, Bharat Petroleum, Corporation Ltd., Bharat Bhavan Block, 31 K IT, Scheme, Prince Gulam Muhammad Sah Road, Kolkatta-95 (West Bengal). 3. Assistant Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. IIIrd Floor Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna -1. 4. Area Marketing Officer, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. IIIrd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna -1. ………. Respondents. ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : - Mr. Satya Deo Kumar, Advocate For BPCL : - Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate ---------- 04/ 01.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of allotment/selection dated 14.06.2005 by which other persons were empanelled as first and second candidate whereas the petitioner was placed at serial no. 3 for retail outlet dealer of petrol/diesel of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for location Amayan within the district of Gopalganj. 3. It is quite strange that although the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid selection, but neither of the two persons, who were above him in the selection panel, has not been impleaded in the writ petition, although, the petitioner has claimed their empanelment as illegal and in valid. 4. Furthermore, learned counsel for the respondent 2 corporation and its authorities specifically stated that the panel was prepared in the year, 2005 and was only for two years, but after submission of the panel neither the selected candidates were interested nor the corporation was interested in opening of any retail outlet dealership of petrol/diesel at the advertised location. He further submits that in the said circumstances neither any allotment has been made as per the panel of 2005 nor the corporation intends to make any such allotment for the said location in near future. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in this petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. DKS/ (S.N. Hussain, J.)