KESHOTE, J. - (1.) IN this second stay application, the petitioner is prayed for the stay of the operation of the order dated 23. 10. 2001 and letter of intent issued to respondent No. 3 till disposal of the writ petition.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The dispute between the parties in the petition pertains to the grant of retail outlet dealership of the Hindustan Petroleum Limited at the disputed site. The oil selection Board has found the respondent No. 3 to be meritorious for this allotment of retal outlet dealership. Accordingly in pursuance of recommendations of the oil selection Board the company has given this dealership to the respondent No. 3 and now as per the petitioner's case letter of intent has also been issued to the granted. The petitioner's case is that he should have been granted this retail outlet dealership. In the matter of grant of retail outlet dealership for the sale of petroleum products the public interest in also a fact which is to be taken note of. This retail outlet dealership is being granted by the petroleum company so as to provide the facility of availability of petroleum products to the consumers at the door steps. The consumers are affected in the case where the court grants stay against the stallation of petrol pump. If a stay in such matter is granted by the Court on the ground that two candidates are contesting over their own rights, ultimately the consumers are sufferer. When the public at large is widely concerned in the matter allotment of the retail outlet dealership merely because one candidate who could not get favourable decision he comes to this Court file a petition lightly and casually stay should not have been granted in his favour by the Court. In this matter if the stay is granted ultimately the consumers who are at receipinst end are the sufferers. Ultimately if the petitioner succeeds in the case he ca be given relief. In the case, stay as prayed for is granted for all the time to come i. e. till the matter is finally decided the consumers will not have this facility, it will result in causing injury to the consumers and as well as to the respondent No. 3. In such matter the Court has to drawn a balance. It has to consider the matter with respect to the gain and loss of the contesting parties. In case at this stage the respondent No. 3 is restrained from commencing this petrol pump he will suffer a loss possibly which cannot be compensated in terms of money on his success in the main matter bat contrary may not be true. I do not find any merit in this prayer made by the petitioner and accordingly this stay application is dismissed. . ;