Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is for quashing the letter bearing Ref. No.RAO/D1/rejection dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure-6) issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been informed that her candidature for allotment of dealership of Liquefied Petroleum Gas under Advertisement dated 13.08.2017 has been rejected and the amount of Rs.40,000/- deposited by the petitioner stands forfeited for the reason that the land offered by the petitioner for consideration of show-room does not fall under the advertised location and no alternative land has been offered during the field verification.
(2.) Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that three interlocutory applications have been filed being I.A. Nos.3255 of 2019, 1087 of 2019 and 1086 of 2019. He submits that before proceeding with the matter appropriate order may be passed in interlocutory application being I.A. No.3255 of 2019 since therein the subsequent advertisement dated 12.01.2019 has been challenged as also in I.A. No.1086 of 2019 which has been filed for impleadment of one Md. Basiruddin as respondent No.4 to the writ petition on the ground that in pursuance to the subsequent advertisement dated 12.01.2019, the said Md. Basiruddin has been declared to be successful and therefore, he is necessary party since the said result has been declared during pendency of the writ petition and now the authority is to allot the dealership in his favour. An objection to both the interlocutory applications has been filed by the respondent-Indian Oil Corporation while disputing the ground that the amendment as has been sought for by the petitioner in the aforesaid interlocutory applications may not be allowed since the petitioner has not participated in terms of the advertisement dated 12.01.2019 and as such she is having no locus to assail the said advertisement since she has not participated in the said tender. If any bidder has been declared to be successful in the process of selection, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved with the said decision and therefore, both the amendment petitions have been prayed to be rejected on the aforesaid ground.
(3.) This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and looking to their rival submissions, deems it fit and proper to hear the matter on merit in order to examine the factual aspect as to whether the petitioner has been able to make out a case for passing any positive order in her favour and if any positive decision would be taken by this Court in favour of the petitioner, then the prayer made by the petitioner in these two interlocutory applications needs to be allowed and therefore this Court has proceeded for hearing up the matter in detail and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the matter in detail so far as the original pleading made in the writ petition by the petitioner as also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents.;