Shikha Rani v. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1168 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Shikha Rani D/O Dadan Prasad R/O Bhatwaliya, P.O.-Bhatwaliya, P.S.- Sangrampur, Distt-East Champaran (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. M/S Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd through its Chairman and Managing Director having its Registered Office at Bharat Bhawan 4&6 Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B.N.688, Mumbai-400001

2. The State Coordianator , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, 3rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001

3. The Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, O/O the State Coordinator /Area Marketing Manager 3rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001

4. The Territory Manager (R.O.)Barauni, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd 3rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001

5. Smt. Meera Devi W/O Sri Lalan Dubey R/O Vill-Mananpur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, Distt-East Champaran, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Verma, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 07-12-2015 Heard Mr. Ravi Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Corporation and Mr. Sanjay Kumar learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the disposal of his complaint by the respondent- State Coordinator, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. as found in Annexure-5 whereby the complaint made by the petitioner as against the private respondent has been disposed of in absence of documents supporting the allegation. Facts are in a very narrow compass. The petitioner and the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1168 of 2013 (6) dt.07-12-2015 2/3 private respondent applied against the dealership of the respondent- Corporation in which the private respondent was empanelled as the first candidate and was selected. This led to the filing of the complaint placed at Anneuxre-3. Upon non disposal thereof, the petitioner approached this Court in C.W.J.C.No.14736 of 2012 and considering the nature of grievance, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the Corporation to dispose of the complaint. An obligation was also cast upon the petitioner to file an application along with the copy of the order as well as the copy of the previous complaint, for convenience of the Regional Manager. It is not in dispute that no such application was filed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that except for the complaint placed at Annexure-3 no document supporting the allegation was filed. In the circumstances, the complaint was disposed of as being unaccompanied with supporting documents.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records.

Apart from the fact that the complaint present at Annexure3 is not worthy of consideration for it raises no grounds for interference with the selection of the private respondent, even otherwise the petitioner is not entitled for any indulgence for he

Patna High Court CWJC No.1168 of 2013 (6) dt.07-12-2015 3/3 has completely failed to abide by the order of this Court which required him to file a fresh application enclosing the copy of the order passed by this Court and the previous complaint which, as admitted by Mr. Verma appearing for the petitioner, was never filed.

In the circumstances, the complaint present at Anneuxre-3 containing no factual details to call for interference with the candidature of the private respondent and not being accompanied with the documents supporting the allegations could only be disposed of in the manner so disposed of by the Corporation. No cause for interference is made out. The writ petition is disposed of. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U