Smt.Bibha Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1134 of 2011 ====================================================== Smt.Bibha Devi, W/O Late Hari Nandan Yadav, Resident Of Chini Mil Road, Banmankhi, P.S.- Banmankhi, District - Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051

3. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division) Through Its General Manager, Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna - 800001

4. General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna - 800001

5. Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Begusarai Divisional Office, Begusarai District Begusarai (Bihar)- 851114

6. Smt. Pushpa Lata Devi, W/O Shri Ashok Yadav, Resident Of Village - Maharajganj, P.S.- Banmankhi, District - Purnea .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha For the Respondent no.1 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AC to SC-2 For the Respondent nos.2to5: Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha Mr.Amlesh Kumar Verma Mr.Abhimanyu Deo ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2015 Heard the parties.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order/communication dated 30.06.2010 (Annexure-6) issued by the respondent no.5, whereby the complaint filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and it has been held that the land offered by the respondent no.6, the first empanelled candidate, is within 1.7 KM from Banmankhi-Dhamdaha Bus Stand on Banmankhi-Dhamdaha road.

After having heard the parties and on examination of the materials available on record as also averments made in the

Patna High Court CWJC No.1134 of 2011 (5) dt.05-05-2015 counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 to 5, this Court does not find any legal infirmity warranting any interference by this Court. The land offered by the respondent no.6 appears to be well within the area of location so advertised vide advertisement as contained in Annexure-1.

In the given facts of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present proceeding. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) Arvind/- U