- (1.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that only on the basis of a complaint made by an M.L.A., the quantity of kerosene oil allotted to the petitioner for Rajdhanwar was given to respondent no. 6; that respondent no. 6 was allowed to carry kerosene oil directly from the depot to Rajdhanwar, but such benefit was not given to the petitioner. It is further submitted that though, an inquiry was held and petitioner made representation, but as the complaint has been made by an M.L.A. and order has been passed by the Joint Secretary, Department of Food, Public Distribution & Consumer Affairs, Ranchi, the decision may not be impartial.
(2.) On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submitted that petitioner was allowed to supply the quantity for Rajdhanwar after taking the same from respondent no. 6 on the basis of the affidavit that supply will be made at a particular rate. He further submitted that in view of the complaints made by local residents and an M.L.A., the said quantity was again re allocated from petitioner to respondent no. 6. He further submitted that inquiry report of Sub-Divisional Officer has been sent to Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on 3rd July 2010 and most probably it has now been sent to the Joint Secretary - respondent no. 3.
(3.) It is not possible to decide the disputed questions of facts raised by the parties in this writ petition.;