Manoj Kumar Manoranjan v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1118 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7984 of 2013 =========================================================== Manoj Kumar Manoranjan S/o Sukhdeo Das, R/o- Village- Nadhi, P.S.- Murli Ganj, District- Madhepura .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Dept. of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Govt. of India, New Delhi
2. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mumbai- 400020
3. The Senior Regional Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Barauni Depot, NH 31, Begusarai, Bihar
4. The Chairman Cum Managing Director (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020
5. General Manager (Retail), 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020
6. Senior Manager (RE & MIS) North Central Zone, HPCL Office, Lucknow (U.P.)
7. Deputy General Manager, North Central Zone, HPCL Office, Lukhnow (U.P.) null null
8. Director Marketing, North Central Zone, HPCL Office, Lukhnow (U.P.)
9. Ashish Kumar S/o Satyendra Prasad Yadav, R/o Murliganj, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent HPCL: Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 10-04-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent Corporation.
The appeal is dismissed. No inference is warranted with the order dated 23.04.2014 because the learned single Judge did not find adequate material to set aside the panel prepared for grant of retail outlet. The allegation of the appellant that his plot of land was
Patna High Court LPA No.1118 of 2014 dt.10-04-2017 2/2 wrongly rejected or the stand taken in the appeal now that the selected candidate's location is also within the prohibited 1000 meters is of no avail for the reason that the learned single Judge gave open authority to intimate the National Highway Authority of India with regard to the so-called anomaly of location and the distance. It seems that after passing of the order dated 23.04.2014, nothing of such kind has been done by the appellant besides filing the memo of appeal.
There is no infirmity with the order of the learned single Judge, which requires rectification in any manner. Appeal is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 11.04.2017 Transmission Date N/A