IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1386 of 2009 Raj Keshwar Prasad S/O Late Rugan Prasad R/O Nehru Chowk, P.O. Chapra, Distt.- Saran At Chapra, Proprietor M/S R.P. Gas Service. Versus 1. M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Having Its East Zone Registered Office 6 Church Lane, Kolkata- 700001 through the General Manager. 2. The General Manager, (East Zone) M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Having Its Registered Office 6 Church Lane, Kolkata- 700001. 3. D.G.M.-LPG SBU, East Zone And Duly Constituted Attorney Industry House, 7th. Floor, 10, Camac Street, Kolkata- 700 017 4. Senior Regional Manager, M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th. Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. 5. The Selection Committee, M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 6th. Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. 6. Sri Ramji Prasad S/O Not Known C/O M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 6th. Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001 ----------- Counsel for the Appellant:- Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Adocate. Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate. Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate. Counsel for the H.P.C.L.: Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent No. 6 Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate. ------------------------------------ Counsel for the Appellant:- Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate. Mr. Raju Giri, Advocate. Counsel for the H.P.C.L.:- Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. Counsel for Respondent no. 6.:- Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate. Mr. Satya Prakash, Advocate. ---------------------------- 7. 26.07.2011 The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 5.10.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12259 of 2009 wherein the appellant has chosen to question the allotment of dealership of M/S Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to unofficial respondent M/S R. P. Gas 2 Service, Nehru Chowk, Chapra, in view of the advertisement dated 17.06.2009 after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it is not for this Court to sit over in the appeal for assessment of the issues which was decided by the appropriate committee. However, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that in pursuance of the information collected under the R.T.I. Act many things have come out, one of which was eligibility criteria of the respondent. According to the learned Senior counsel, the financial capacity of unofficial respondent was not shown to the income tax department. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and learned counsel for the H.P.C.L. we are of the opinion that the information sought by the appellant herein under the R.T.I. Act cannot be used in the Judicial Proceeding. We deem it proper to grant liberty to the appellant herein to agitate his right on the information received under the R.T.I. Act, which has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit, before the forum prescribed under clause 21 of the Brochure even though the period of limitation prescribed in lodging the complaint was three 3 months and the appellant has already availed such remedy and the order passed there on by that authority was the subject matter of the writ petition. We are of the opinion that a fresh cause of action has been raised in view of the information sought by the appellant with regard to eligibility criteria of unofficial respondent. Hence it would suffice if a liberty is granted to the appellant herein to make afresh representation before the appropriate forum in view of the fresh cause of action with regard to income tax return, as contained in clause 21 of the Brochure within a period of 30 days from today and if such representation is made the same would be disposed off after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. We also make it clear that the complaint should be confined only for the issues as with regard to the information received under the R.T.I. Act. With the above observation this appeal stands disposed off. Anand Kr. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)