Patna High CourtCWJC/19525/2011dismissed

Mudit Anand v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporatio

2015-10-15Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.19525 of 2011 (3) dt.15-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19525 of 2011 ====================================================== Mudit Anand, S/O Bidya Bhushan Singh, resident of Village- Paharpur, P.O.- Paharpur, P.S.- Paharpur, Distt.- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through its Chairman-CumManaging Director HPCL, Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020

2. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director HPCL, Petroleum House, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400020

3. The Zonal Manager (Retail) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 6th, 7th And 8th Floors, North Tower, Core-2, Scop Minor, District- Centre, Laxminagar, Delhi-110092

4. The Senior Regional Manager, S.R.M. (PLRO), Patna L.P.G. Region, 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna800001 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Dr. Pankaj, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 15-10-2015 Despite repeated calls no one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned action taken against the petitioner was fully justified as the petitioner did not have the requisite funds as disclosed in Clause- 10.2 and Clause-10.3 of his application form. In course of Field Verification of credentials it is found that there was only an amount of Rs. 1,31,752/- in the petitioner's SBI Savings Account. Such amount taken together with the amount of Fixed Deposit,

Patna High Court CWJC No.19525 of 2011 (3) dt.15-10-2015 N.S.C etc. disclosed at Rs. 57,332/- still falls short of the minimum requirement of fund of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner's candidature has rightly been cancelled.

3. Be that as it may, in view of non-appearance of the petitioner, the writ petition stands dismissed for nonprosecution. (Vikash Jain, J) Md. Ibrarul/- U