IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.934 of 2010
IN
CWJC 6119/2007
WITH
I.A. NO. 5233 OF 2010
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 934 of 2010
===========================================
NAVIN KUMAR S/O BIRENDAR PRASAD SHARMA
R/O MOHALLA- RAI KASHI NATH COLONY, KATARI
HILL ROAD, P.O.- RAMPUR, P.S. CIVIL LINES, DISTT.-
GAYA
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI
2. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF
SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH
SENIOR RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LTD., PATNA DIVISIONAL OFFICE
BLOCK A MAURYA LOK DAKBANGLA ROAD, PATNA
4. THE SENIOR RETAIL SALES MANAGER INDIAN OIL
CORPORATION LTD., PATNA REGIONAL/DIVISIONAL
OFFICE, BLOCK A MAURYA COMPLEX DAK
BANGLAW ROAD, PATNA
5. THE GENERAL MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION
LTD. STATE OFFICE BLOCK A MAURYA LOK
COMPLEX, DAKBANGLA ROAD, PATNA
6. NITU KUMARI W/O GUDDU SHARMA R/O JAROO
BANWARIA, P.O.- JAROO BANWARIA, P.S.
HULASGANJ, DISTT.- JAHANABAD
============================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. SHAILESH KUMAR SHARMA
For the Respondent: Mr. RAGHIB AHSAN(ASST.SG)
Mr. ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Mr. AMLESH KUMAR SINHA
Mr. SUNIL KUMAR
===========================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
2
03. 26.08.2010 I.A. No. 5233 of 2010
This application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act is filed by the appellant for condonation of
delay of 38 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent
Appeal.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the delay is condoned.
The Interim Application stands disposed of.
L.P.A. No. 934 of 2010
This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent arises from the order dated 15th February 2010
made by the learned Single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No.
6119 of 2007.
The learned Single Judge has refused to
interfere in the matter of allotment of retail outlet by the
respondent Indian Oil Corporation on the ground that
pending the petition the respondent no. 6 has been allotted
the retail outlet and that has become functional.
Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sharma, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support
of his contention has relied upon the judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Onkar Lal Bajaj etc. Versus Union
of India and another etc. reported in A.I.R. 2003 S.C.
2562.
In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has
3
rightly exercised the discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution. No case for interference is made out. The
appeal is dismissed in limine.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ.)
S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)