Pooanm Devi v. Senior Regional Manager,Lpg Ar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17136 of 2010 =========================================================== Poonam Devi W/o Rajnath Ram residing at the Village - Selaur, P.O.+P.S.- Guthani, District- Siwan (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. Senior Regional Manager, Patna L.P.G. Area Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Post Box No.-40, Dak Bangla Chauk, Patna (Bihar)

2. Area Sales Manager, Patna L.P.G. Area 6th Floor, Post Box No. - 40, Dak Bangala, Patna .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For Respondent-Corporation: Mr. Rabindra Nath Kanth, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-06-2018 The present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 18.08.2010 issued by the respondent No. 4 by which her selection for dealership of an LPG outlet to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has been cancelled and seeking a direction to the respondents for restoring her selection for dealership of above named LPG Company.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner despite repeated calls.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation appears and opposes the writ petition. Referring to paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner's claim could not be maintained as she was a resident of village Selaur Guthani whereas the

Patna High Court CWJC No.17136 of 2010 dt.22-06-2018 2/2 advertisement was for village Guthani. The letter dated 07.01.2010 was accordingly issued by the respondent-Corporation regarding her ineligibility pursuant to which the petitioner submitted her representation dated 27.01.2010 once again asserting that she was a resident of village Selaur, Panchayat Guthani East which was also confirmed in the field verification and it was observed that village Selaur is not the advertised location and hence the petitioner was found ineligible for consideration for award of the said RGGLV.

4. Having regard to the stand of the respondentCorporation in the counter affidavit which has not been controverted as no rejoinder thereto has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, accordingly, the writ petition devoid of merit stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 26.06.2018 Transmission Date N.A.