IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6119 of 2007 NAVIN KUMAR SON OF SRI BRIND PRASAD SHARMA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA RAI KASHINATH COLONY, KATARI HILL ROAD, P.O. RAMPUR, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTRICT GAYA. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI. 2. THE STATE OF BIHAR, THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH THE SENIOR RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BLOCK A, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 4. THE SENIOR RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. PATNA REGIONAL/DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BLOCK A MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 5. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. STATE OFFICE, BLOCK A MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BUNGLOW ROAD, PATNA. 6. NITU KUMARI WIFE OF GUDDU SHARMA RESIDNET OF JAROO BANWARIA, P.S. JAROO BANWARIA, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. ----------- 2 15/02/2010 The reason why the Court is not willing to exercise its power and discretion in the present writ application is because at no point of time the petitioner had taken any step whatsoever to restrain the respondent Corporation to issue letter of intent or to restrain respondent no. 6 from setting up and making retail outlet functional after filing of the writ - 2 - application on 9.5.2007. Statement has been made that the retail outlet has been commissioned and made functional on 31.03.2008. The petitioner has allowed certain right to accrue in favour of the private respondent by his own conduct. In view of the above developments and failure on the part of the petitioner to take appropriate steps at appropriate time, the Court is not inclined to undo a right which has already been created in favour of the private respondent. This writ application is dismissed on the above ground. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)