CWP No.350 of 2007. 17.9.2008. Present: Mr.Ajay Mohan Goel, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Asstt.Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1. Mr.K.D. Sood, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr.Raj Bahadur, vice counsel for respondent No.4. Mr.K.D. Sood, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, has placed on record a letter addressed to him by the Chief Legal Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation informing him that the head office of the Indian Oil Corporation had come to a conclusion that the location of the retail outlet at Jaisinghpur in District Kangra, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, was inadvertently advertised as being on the Major District Roads, whereas it falls on Other District Roads. According to this communication, the head office of the Indian Oil Corporation has put an embargo on the release of advertisements on these roads and whenever the embargo will be removed, this location will be advertised thereafter. From the perusal of the aforesaid letter, it is obvious that the Indian Oil Corporation does not intend to proceed with the advertisement originally issued and no person is to be granted the retail outlet on the said basis. Therefore, nothing survives in the present writ petition which has become infructuous. We may, however, make it clear that as and when the said retail outlet is re-advertised, the petitioner and all others may apply for the same and they shall be considered for the same, if they fulfill the requisite qualifications and conditions. In case the petitioner has any grievance with regard to investments allegedly made by him on the assurance given to him by the Indian Oil Corporation, he can vindicate his rights by filing a civil suit. CWP No.350 of 2007. -2- The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In view of the final disposal of the main petition, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. September 17, 2008. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.