Manoj Kumar Jha v. The Indian Oil Corpn.Limited And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22814 of 2011 =========================================================== Manoj Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Vijay Kant Jha, Resident of Village + P.O.- Jahanpur, P.S.- Jokihat, District - Araria - 854329 (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited through its Managing Director having its Corporate office at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 3079/3, Sadid Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi - 110049

2. The Managing Director, The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, having its office at Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 3079/3, Sadid Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi - 110049

3. The SDRSM Indian Oil Corporation Limited (M.D.), Begusarai Divisional Office, Begusarai

4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bihar State Office, Patna

5. The Circle Officer, Block - Jokihat, District- Araria (Bihar)

6. Jitendra Kumar Das, Son of Naresh Lal Das, Resident of Cach Tola, P.S.-Keshri Thana, Jokihat, District - Araria .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : None For Respondent-IOCL: Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha Mr. Amlesh Kr. Verma, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 24-06-2016 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the letter dated 23.09.2011 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 by which the complaint filed by the petitioner regarding the irregularities that have taken place in awarding marks by the Interview Committee in the selection of Petrol/Diesel Rural Retail Outlet (Kisan Seva Kendra) Dealers at Jahanpur, District Araria under open category has been rejected.

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner when the matter is called. The matter remained unrepresented on behalf of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.22814 of 2011 dt.24-06-2016 2/2 petitioner also on 21.06.2016 when the case was passed over. The petitioner does not appear to be interested in prosecuting the matter. Despite opportunities being granted by orders dated 27.04.2016 and 12.05.2016, rejoinder to the counter affidavit has still not been filed. This Court takes note that even on earlier occasion, the writ petition had been dismissed by order dated 01.05.2012.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the complaint of the petitioner had been disposed of by a reasoned order on the basis of the investigation report which has duly been enclosed with the counter affidavit and as such, the writ petition is without merit.

4. Be that as it may, in view of non-appearance of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/- U