IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6367 of 2010 1. Mukesh Kumar S/O Yogendra Prasad Bhagat, R/O Vill & P.O. Belhar, Block & Tehsil-Belhar, Distt-Banka, Pin- 813202 2. Manoj Kumar Sah S/O Jagannath Sah, R/O At & P.O.Belhar, P.S.Belhar, Distt-Banka, Pin-813202 3. Santosh Kumar Bhagat S/O Moleshwari Prasad Bhagat, R/O At & P.O.Belhar, P.S.Belhar, Distt-Banka, Pin-813202.......Petitioners. Versus 1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Senior Regional Manager, Patna LPG Regional Office, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001 2. Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Patna LPG Regional Office 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001 3. Plant Manager, Patna LPG Plant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Patna 4. Sanjib Kumar S/O Late Udai Kumar Singh, R/O P.O.& P.S.Belhar, Distt-Banka, Pin-813202 5. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, Superintendent of Police, BMP-16 Patna…………………………………………………..Respondents. For the petitioners : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, Advocate. For HPCL : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Advocate. For respondent no.4 : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, Advocate. ----------- 03/ 12.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and its authorities as well as learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging draw dated 15.03.2010 held by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for selection of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) for village Belhar under the open category and also for directing the Corporation and its authorities to hold a fresh draw for the said village as per the advertisement and guidelines contained in the Brochure - 2 - for selection and for other ancillary reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently challenges the impugned draw on the ground that the authorities had not adopted the procedure prescribed in the Brochure (Annexure-2) specially clause 12.6 and 12.7 thereof, as the lots were drawn by the Superintendent of Police, who was not in the list of invited guests prescribed in the said clause. He further stated that token numbers were not given to the candidates and their names on a slip were put in a see through jar, all the names being apparent from outside and the invited guest picked out the successful candidate which was against all the norms of justice and fair play also. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents presses their counter affidavit and submits that they have specifically denied all the allegations raised by the petitioners with respect to the aforesaid facts. 5. From cause 12.7 of the Brochure it is quite apparent that several officials were named therein but the word ‘etc.’ was also added at the end which showed that other officials can also be invited guests. In the said circumstances the invitation sent to the Superintendent of Police for being a guest cannot be said to be against the prescribed procedure. So far the other allegations are concerned, they are matter of facts and there is oath against oath and no concrete evidence has been produced to support the claim of the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, this court does not find any - 3 - occasion to interfere with the impugned selection and thus this writ petition is dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)