Sanjay Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3720 of 2010 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar S/O Rabindra Kumar, R/O Vill.& P.O.- Parsauni Kapur, P.S.- Patahi, Distt.- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary Deptt. of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi

2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhawan Plot No.- 3, Prince Gulam Anwar Sah Road Kalkta- 700095 through its General Manager

3. The General Manager Eastern Regional Office, Bharat Bhawan Plot No.- 3, Prince Gulam Anwar Sah Road Kalkta- 700095 through its General Manager

4. The Area Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 3 Rd Floor, Ashiana Chamber, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001

5. The Territory Manager Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. At & P.O.- Papapur Barauni, Distt.- Begusarai

6. The Senior Sales Officer, Bhart Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Club Road, Muzaffarpur

7. Savita Singh W/O Late Sudhanshu Kumar Singh R/O Vill.- Patahi Purvi Gram Panchayat, Patahi, East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pandey For the Respondent No.1: Mrs. Kanak Verma For the Respondent No.2 to 6 : Mr. Sanjay Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2015 Heard the parties.

The matter at issue is allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited at Pataha in the district of East Champaran, on the basis of advertisement as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 6 submits that though originally Retail Outlet Dealership in question was allotted in favour of the respondent no.7, but subsequently the respondent no.2 decided not

Patna High Court CWJC No.3720 of 2010 (3) dt.13-02-2015 2/2 to go ahead with the location for opening of Retail Outlet Dealership. Consequently, letter of intent was not issued to the respondent no.7 and finally the location in question has been abandoned. Therefore, according to him, the present writ petition has become infructuous.

In view of the aforesaid submission/ statement made by Mr. Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 6, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition. Permission is accorded.

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, since it has become infructuous.

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J) BTiwary/- U