1 and the appellant in the accompanying appeal at No.
19906/2013 filed by Respondent No.
The said companysharer had raised objection against installation of retail outlet on the piece of land offered by respondent No.
1 are number by all the companysharers.
The record further reveals that first respondent claims to have taken on lease the land measuring 2 Kanals, 9 Marlas out of total land measuring 22 Kanals 13 Marlas.
Similarly, the appointment of appellant in the accompanying appeal as the Retail Outlet Dealer on the basis of her placement at No.
The land is owned by several companysharers and one of them has in fact, filed even partition proceedings.
P1 at item No.
1 as without partition, she cannot claim that the prime front portion of the land abutting the main highway, has fallen to the share of her lessors.
The appellant is unable to explain as to how companyld it make selection or declare the land suitable without verifying the record as it was still a joint holding and the affidavits relied upon by respondent No.
2 relates to allotment of retail dealership of the Petrol Pump of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. respondent No.
1 against the final order dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Single Judge in W.P. No.
Fresh advertisement, if any, by the Corporation, shall be subject to final outcome of these appeals.
2 without even inspecting the land offered by them.
1 passed the following interim order The companytroversy in these Letter Patent Appeals pertains to appointment of Retail Outlet Dealership.
Operation of the order passed by learned Single Judge shall remain stayed.
Soon thereafter, on 27.05.2013, the inspection companymittee asked for the demarcation of the land in question.
After the merit list was circulated on 06.03.2013, the land offered by respondent No.
The High companyrt while admitting the appeal of Respondent No.
Feeling aggrieved by the interim order passed by the Division Bench, the appellant has filed this appeal.
The selection companymittee placed first respondent writ petitioner at No.
1 was inspected on 07.05.2013 and found suitable on 08.05.2013.
Brief facts The dispute between the appellant and respondent No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
1 located between Km stone 94 97 as S.H. 11 as Sonepat as mentioned in Advertisement Ann.
1 number the appellant in the accompanying appeal shall be allowed to operate the retail outlet.
Admit.
Having regard to the nature of short companytroversy involved in this appeal, numberice to Respondent No.
2 against the appellant herein and Respondent No.
