DILIP KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' for the sake of brevity) and its authorities have been heard in detail. Neither any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 6, nor anyone has appeared on his behalf even though notices were sent and had been validly served upon him and the name of his learned counsel vide vakalatnama dated 15-5-2002 is appearing on the daily cause list.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 11-1-2002 (Annexure-1) by which the Chairman, dealer Selection Board, Patna (respondent No. 4) dismissed his petition filed pursuant to order dated 10-8-2001 (Annexure-4) passed by a bench of this Court in CWJC No. 10235 of 2001.

(3.) The short facts of the case is that on 26-9-2000 a notice was issued in the 'Hindustan' daily Hindi Newspaper by the Corporation inviting application for appointment of retail outlet dealers for several places, including Gaya Bye-pass Road, which is the location in dispute in the instant writ petition. In the said notice, it was specifically mentioned that the applicant must be of the area where the retail outlet was to be established. The petitioner being the resident of the said area applied in the prescribed format and within the prescribed time before the authority concerned for appointment of retail outlet dealer of the Corporation for Gaya Bye-pass Road. Respondent No. 6, who the resident of district of Garahwa, but at the relevant time was posted at Gaya from 10-8-1999 as Junior Electrical Engineer (General), also applied for the aforesaid proposed location.