Patna High CourtCWJC/8360/2011dfd for non appearance

Seema Agrawal v. The Union Of India And ORS

2016-07-27Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8360 of 2011 =========================================================== Seema Agrawal wife of Rajiv Kumar Agrawal, Resident of Kharag Narain House, Mungeriganj, At & Post Begusarai, Police Station Begusarai, District Begusarai.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary Oil and Natural Gas Department, New Delhi.

2. Executive Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Bharat Bhawan, 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, P.B. No. 688, Mumbai 400001.

3. Co-Ordinator, Dealer Selection Board, O/O Area Marketing Manager, 3rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001.

4. Territory Manager (Retail), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Barauni Top, N.H.31, At & P.O. Papraur, District Begusarai-851114.

5. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Begusarai, Bihar. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner :

None For the State :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi, AAG 10 Mr. Parijat Saurav, AC to AAG 10 For the BPCL :

Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate For Intervener Resp. :

Mr. Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-07-2016 None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

2. It transpires that despite order dated 05.04.2016 granting time to the petitioner to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit as prayed, no such rejoinder appears to have been filed. The petitioner has also sought adjournments as evident from the orders dated 20.06.2016 and 19.07.2016 and is not present today. It therefore

Patna High Court CWJC No.8360 of 2011 dt.27-07-2016 appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting the matter which itself is an old one relating to the year 2011.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General-10 Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi appears on behalf of the State to contend that the writ petition is not maintainable and in any view of the matter, the land offered by the petitioner for purposes of the retail outlet did not fulfil the requisite conditions of the advertisement.

4. Be that as it may, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 29.07.2016 Transmission Date NA