Bishwanath Sah v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.116 of 2014 =========================================================== Bishwanath Sah S/O Aditya Kumar Sah Resident Of At + P.O. + P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.) Through Its Chairman, Office- G-9, Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 (India)

2. The Chairman, The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Office-G-9, Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051 (India)

3. The Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Indian Area Office, Begusarai, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai (Bihar) 851114

4. The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (M.D.), Indian Area Office, Begusarai, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai (Bihar) 851114 .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents : M/S Anil Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate, & Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-02-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

The petitioner seeks quashing of Annexure 5 dated 11.11.2013 which is letter informing the decision of the Indian Oil Corporation that has not been found eligible or RGGLV. It is submitted that the lands belong to the family of the petitioner and he has complied everything but the authorities have erroneously come to such conclusion that the petitioner does not own land in the advertised location.

Patna High Court CWJC No.116 of 2014 dt.05-02-2015 2/2 Learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation has pointed out that in the form filled up by the petitioner, the name of the land owner has been entered as Chedu Sah - Manu Sah. The petitioner has said that they are grandparents but the NOC and affidavit has been filed by petitioner himself and one Pradip Kumar Sah. In response to a clarification sought vide Annexure 3, the petitioner has answered vide Annexure 4 series that land belonged to his grandparents and brother of the great-grandparents jointly, thereafter, it was given to one Mahavir Prasad Sah whose heirs have sworn affidavit but nothing has been appended to show as in whose name entry in the revenue records etc exists. It is also a fact that form was filled up disclosing that the land concerned belonged to a dead person.

Now the work has been allotted to somebody else and the same has already commenced.

Thus, in my considered opinion, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) Spd/- U