By a judgment dated 15.1.2004 the Writ Petition was allowed and the selection made by the DSB was quashed.
In the Writ petition appellant was also impleaded as a party.
The DSB issued interview letters to all those candidates who were found eligible.
One J.P. Pandey Respondent number1 , who was also one of the applicants and whose name did number figure in the select list, filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the selection made by the DSB.
On being placed at number1 in the Select List, a letter of Intent was issued on 8.11.2001 and the necessary order was handed over to the appellant.
She claims to have made substantial investments in making the Retail Outlet operational.
By the impugned order the Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that since the matter has been remitted to the DSB for fresh companysideration, there was numberillegality in the order.
Poonam Kumar Appellant, Shri Dinesh Kumar Singh and Shri Anil Kumar.
Learned Single Judge took up the matter on 3.3.2004 and after numbericing the grievance of the appellant held that though she was number afforded the opportunity of hearing before the Writ Petition was allowed, there was numbernecessity for changing the ultimate decision.
14506 of 2001 be recalled.
The earlier reasoning companyld number have been repeated to dismiss the application.
2871 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C NO.14039 of 2004 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
It is pointed out that the appellant was placed at serial No.1 of the select list and had been given permission to operate retail outlet and had made huge investments and therefore her selection companyld number have been nullified by learned Single Judge.
Pursuant to the said order, an application MJC No.256 of 2004 was filed praying that the order dated 15.1.2004 in the Writ Petition C.W.J.C No.
The appellant was one of the applicants.
There the main allegation was that even though his father had made the land available to IOC, he was number given a preference in the matter of allotment and appointment as a dealer.
The entire infrastructure was put up by IOC including the arrangement of the land, the oil tanks were installed and certain persons were employed as members of staff and with effect from 12.11.2001, appellant started operating the Retail Outlet.
Since appellant claimed that numbernotice was served on her and she was number in a position to place her case before learned Single Judge who heard and allowed the Writ Petition, she filed LPA No.93 of 2004.
Regard being had to the circumstances of this case if an application is filed for companysideration of the writ companyrt within a week, this matter will be placed as a fresh case.
REPORTABLE CIVIL APPEAL NO.
The Appellant filed the LPA 401 of 2004 questioning the order passed.
On 3.2.2004 after hearing the parties, the Division Bench disposed of the LPA observing as follows On record it is clear and apparent and some of the Respondents were number before the Writ Court to make a submission for the simple reason that they were without numberice.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge accepted that the appellant had number got the opportunity of being heard.
The applications were verified by IOC and the applications of all the eligible candidates were forwarded to the Dealer Selection Board in short the DSB for making selection.
It companysidered the materials placed before it by the applicants and produced during interviews, and on the basis of the interview allegedly prepared a select list on merits in the following order Smt.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Letters Patent appeal filed by the appellant.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 1.9.2000, the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. in short the IOC issued advertisement inviting applications for appointment of a dealer in respect of certain retail outlets petrol pumps in various places including one in Brahampur in State of Bihar.
However, numbernotice was served on her.
