← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/2030/2018disposed off

Abhishek Agrawal v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

2018-09-24Hon'Ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 2030 of 2018

1. Abhishek Agrawal S/o Rajendra Prasad Agrawal Aged About 30 Years R/o Behind Champa Railway Station, Champa, DistrictJanjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited A Government Of India, Enterprises, Through Its General Manager, 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

2. Senior Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Madina Manjil, 2nd Floor, Medical College Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. General Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 771, Anandpur, Opposite Em Bypass, Calcutta.

4. Sub-Divisional Officer Public Works Department, Sakti, Division Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

5. Chief Vigilance Officer Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Petroleum House, 17, J. Tata Road, Church Gate, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

6. Rishabh Agrawal S/o Vinod Kumar Agrawal Aged About 24 Years R/o Ward No. 7, Near Ram Mandir, Hatri Road, Sakti, DistrictJanjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

7. Vinod Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shankarlal Agrawal aged about 57 years, R/o Ward No. 7, Near Ram Mandir, Hatri Road, Sakti, District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.1-3&5 Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate For Respondent/State Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer Order On Board By Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

24/09/2018 1.

Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 to decide his complaint; quash the allotment made to the respondent No.6 being contrary to the guidelines; and till the complaint is decided further proceeding of the allotment of retail outlet be not finalised.

2.

During pendency of the writ petition the complaint itself has been disposed of on 17-7-2018, therefore, the prayer made in the petition has been rendered infructuous and since the complaint has been decided by an order passed by the Oil Company the petitioner would be required to challenge the said order, therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move afresh, if he so desires, to challenge the order passed by the Oil Company.

Sd/- Judge Prashant Kumar Mishra Gowri