- (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to produce the Letter of Intent issued in favour of Respondent No.7, and upon production, to quash the same. The facts, in short, are that for appointing a L.P.G. Distributorship for the town of Pakur, an advertisement was published as contained in Annexure1 to this writ petition by the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner, the respondent no.7 as well as others also applied, and ultimately, the Dealers Selection Board, on consideration of interse merit of the candidates, selected the respondent No.7 namely Sunita Jain for the aforesaid L.P.G. Distributorship. The grievance of the petitioner is that though there were number of complaints against the private respondent no.7 namely Mrs. Sunita Jain and her father -in -law to the effect that they were indulging in unfair trade practice, but, she was illegally selected by influencing the Selection Board by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur as well as local M.P. who recommended the case of the respondent no.7 for her appointment as L.P.G. Distributor. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondent as well as Indian Oil Corporation, wherein allegation made by the petitioner against the private respondent no.7 has been controverted, and it is stated that on the allegation made by 2 the petitioner as well as on the complaint received against Mrs. Sunita Jain, proper enquiry was made by the Anti Adulteration Cell, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, New Delhi, and thereafter, the Director General, Anti Adulteration Cell, by his letter dated July, 12' 2002 addressed to the Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gases, intimated that regarding allegations of blackmarketing of L.P.G. cylinders by Mrs. Sunita Jain and her family members was enquired by contacting most of the complainants, it was found that except one person, no one said anything against Smt. Sunita Jain. The said report at AnnexureB further shows that the candidature of the respondent no.7 Mrs. Sunita Jain was found better than the petitioner, and therefore, she was selected for L.P.G. Dealership.
(3.) ON the facts and circumstances stated above, I do not find any merit so far as the allegation made by the petitioner against the respondent no.7. Accordingly, having found no merit this writ application is dismissed.;