- (1.) This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dt. 18.09.2015 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3221/2013. In brief factual matrix of the case is that the respondent Hindustan Petroleum Corporation vide advertisement 19.09.2011 invited applications for awarding retail outlet at different locations including Setrawa, Tehsil-Shergarh District Jodhpur. The appellant-petitioner as well as respondent-Mahipal Singh submitted applications to consider their candidature for allotment of dealership as per the advertisement referred above. At the first instance, the respondent Petroleum Company placed the appellant-petitioner at serial No. 1 in the list of the persons to whom letter of intent for installing petrol pump could have been given. The candidature, however, was subsequently rejected on being found the petitioner suffering from disqualification referred in para 6.1.1 of the norms for access for fuel stations along with State Highways/MDR's/ODR's. The respondent Petroleum company conducted fresh interview wherein the petitioner as well as respondent Mahipal Singh re-participated and as a consequence thereto, Shri Mahipal Singh was placed at serial No. 1 in the list of original candidates to whom dealership of petroleum product could have been given. The appellant-petitioner then submitted a representation to the respondent Petroleum company pointing out that respondent Mahipal Singh also suffered from disqualification as per para 6.1.1 of the norms referred to above as settled by the Public Works Department. The respondent Petroleum company after having investigation done found no merit in the complaint, therefore, rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Petroleum company, the appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ before this Court on 08.04.2013. After service of notices in the month of October, 2013, interim direction was issued directing all the parties to maintain status quo.
(2.) Suffice to mention that as a matter of fact even prior to filing of the writ petition, letter of intent was already issued on 2.3.2013 in favour of respondent Mahipal Singh. The learned Single Bench after examining the entire material available on record dismissed the writ petition. Besides other merits of the case, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant-petitioner despite having knowledge about issuance of letter of intent issued on 02.03.2013, did not challenge the same, therefore, now no relief as prayed for can be given.
(3.) From perusal of the record, it reveals that the fact about issuance of letter of intent was mentioned in the reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of respondent Mahipal Singh. On bringing this fact to the knowledge of the appellant-petitioner, the appellant-petitioner should have challenged the letter of intent either by way of filing a separate writ petition or by making necessary amendments in the writ petition which ultimately culminated into the judgment impugned. We are of the considered opinion that in absence of giving challenge to the letter of intent, no useful purpose would be served to examine other merits of the case in hand. In view of this, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.;