Anmol Devi @ Amol Devi v. The Union Of India And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15212 of 2017 ====================================================== Anmol Devi @ Amol Devi wife of Shri Surendra Narayan Rai Resident of Village - Damu, Police Station - Basopatti, District - Madhubani Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union Of India through the Secretary, Department Of Petroleum, New Delhi.

2.

The Regional Manager, Muzaffarpur Retail Territory, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 4, Govt. of ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the BPCL :

Mr.Rajeev Prakash, Adv.

Mr.Annpurna Prasad, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.S.D Sanjay Addl. Soc. Gen.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-08-2025

1. The Writ petition is filed for quashing the letter (Annexure-W), MZP NRO dated 05.04.2015 issued by the Territory Manager, Muzaffarpur, whereby the petitioner was informed that she was not found eligible for R.O. dealership as the R.O. was advertised under the rural category, whereas the land offered was situated on the National Highway.

2. The Learned counsel for the petitioner reported to the Court that the petitioner is no

Patna High Court CWJC No.15212 of 2017 dt.12-08-2025 2/3 more, and he intends to file a substitution petition for bringing the legal heirs onto the record.

3. On the other hand, the Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a detailed counter affidavit, bringing to the notice of this Court that the R.O. dealership was advertised for the rural category, but the land details furnished by the petitioner revealed that the site was situated on the National Highway and not in the rural category, for which, the letter was issued by the Territory Manager holding the petitioner not eligible for the dealership. It is further submitted by the Learned counsel for the respondents that no third-party right has been created and the dealership has not been finalized till date, as no further candidates were found eligible. It is also submitted that subsequently two more advertisements were issued by the BPCL, but not for this location.

4. As on today, the dealership under the rural category has not been finalized by the respondents, as they did not find the location feasible. This Court cannot compel the respondents

Patna High Court CWJC No.15212 of 2017 dt.12-08-2025 3/3 to appoint any person at such location. Therefore, the Writ petition stands closed as the petitioner is no more, and the respondents have no intention to finalize dealership for the said location.

(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J) AMANDEEP/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 23.08.2025 Transmission Date