Amal Kumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11295 of 2013 =========================================================== Amal Kumar, Son Of Sri Anil Kumar Singh, Resident Of Station Road, Ward No. 23, P.O. and P.S. Madhepura, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. through the Chairman-cumManaging Director, Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.
2. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Petroleum House, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai.
3. The Senior Circle Manager (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Begusarai Barauni Divisional Office, Begusarai.
4. Smt. Manisha Kumari @ Manisha Devi, wife of Sri Manoj Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Azad Nagar, Ward No. 9, P.O. & P.S. Madhepura, District- Madhupura. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate For Respondent-Corporation: Mr. Rajeev Prakash, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 07-08-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and decide the complaint filed by the petitioner under Clause-19 of the Guidelines issued by the respondent-Corporation regarding selection of dealers for Retail Outlet, even if it has been filed after more than one month from the date of selection because the petitioner had no knowledge about the selection of respondent no. 4 previously and the petitioner has come to know about the selection of the respondent no. 4, when she has started the development work of the land which she had offered for the purposes of appointment as dealer; and for connected reliefs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11295 of 2013 dt.07-08-2018 2/2
2. After some arguments and in view of the fact that the petitioner was unable to show that any complaint was filed before the respondent-Corporation, Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition which is granted.
3. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (Vikash Jain, J) B.T/Chandran AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 10.08.2018 Transmission Date N.A.