AJIT KUMAR HANSDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the selection, whereby and whereunder, the Respondent No. 6, Ramesh Tudu and Respondent No. 7, Suprakash Hembram have been shown at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively for awarding the dealership of retail outlet in Mihijam area.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a local resident of Mihijam which is in the revenue district of Dumka. He being a Scheduled Tribe applied for the retail outlet at Mihijam in pursuance of advertisement published in the newspaper "HINDUSTAN" on 2nd September, 2000, vide Annexure -1.

(3.) IT was ordered to issue notice on Respondent No. 6 by Courts order dated 7th March, 2002. The requisites having not filed within time, the writ petition stood dismissed against Respondent No. 6. For the said reason, the petitioner filed LA. No. 671/02 for restoration of writ petition as against Respondent No. 6 showing the ground for non -compliance of Courts peremptory order.