Satya Poot Mehrotra, Het Singh Yadav, JJ. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the Communication dated 31.7.2012 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition), whereby the L.P.G. Distributorship at the location in question was allotted to the respondent No. 7. It appears that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the respondent No. 7 as well as certain other persons applied for grant of L.P.G. Distributorship in respect of the location in question under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Scheme. The respondent No. 7 was selected by draw of lots and accordingly, the aforesaid Communication dated 31.7.2012 was issued. The petitioners, thereupon filed a complaint dated 3.9.2012 (Annexure -8 to the writ petition) purporting to be under Clause 19 of the Brochure issued by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for selection of L.P.G. Distributors under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin L.P.G. Scheme.
(2.) WE have heard Shri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Sri Ajay Bhanot, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint is pending since 3.9.2012, and sufficient time has passed but no decision has been taken in respect of the complaint.
(3.) SRI Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 states that instructions have been received by him. Shri Prakash Padia further states, on the basis of instructions received by him, that the decision in respect of the said complaint will be taken by the concerned authority expeditiously,;