← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/21378/2018withdrawn

Bipin Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

2025-08-01Justice Smt. G. Anupama Chakravarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21378 of 2018 ====================================================== Bipin Kumar Son of Ugranand Yadav, Resident of Village-Fatehpur, Jharkaha, P.S.-Narpatanj, District-Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Secretary, Department of Oil and Natural Gas, Government of India.

2.

The Deputy General Manager Retail Sales, Head Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Mumbai.

3.

The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra, East Mumbai, Maharastra 4.

The Deputy General Manager Retail Sales, Indian Oil Corporation, Begusarai.

5.

The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Begusarai ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Saket Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Rajeev Prakash, Advocate :

Mr. Annpurna Prasad, Advocate :

Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate :

Mr. Rishi Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL ORDER 01-08-2025

1. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the Learned counsel for the IOCL and the Learned counsel for the State that IOCL is arrayed as party. However, the prayer shows that the petitioner is seeking allotment for LPG distributorship agency and the contents of the entire Writ petition disclose about the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, though Hindustan

Patna High Court CWJC No.21378 of 2018(2) dt.01-08-2025 2/2 Petroleum Corporation Limited is not made party to the Writ petition. It is also contended by the Learned counsel for the State that the contents of the Writ petition disclose that the petitioner is aggrieved by non-granting of LPG distributorship and not about the retail outlet, therefore, the Writ petition is not maintainable.

2. At this juncture, the Learned counsel for the petitioner intends to withdraw the Writ petition to file a proper Writ petition with proper averments.

3. Permission is granted to file a fresh Writ petition.

4. Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) amitkr/- U