2025:HHC:6425 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 434 of 2002 Decided on: 18.03.2025 Sh. Aditya Gupta … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Virbahadur Verma, CGC for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate for respondent No. 2-IOC. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate for respondent No. 4-ITO. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has primarily prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Directing the respondents to produce the records relating to the interviews held on 21/03/2002 for RO Dealership/Distributorship of IOC at Yol Camp. Distt. Kangra (HP). b) Quashing of allotment of retail outlet made in favour 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:6425 of respondent No. 5 and further quashing the action of the respondents in issuing Letter of Intent.” 2. The petitioner approached this Court on the ground that the act of the respondent-IOC of considering the candidature of respondent No. 3 for the allotment of the retail outlet dealership at the location Yal Camp between Dharamshala and Chamba in terms of the advertisement appended alongwith CMP No. 2076 of 2016, is bad in law. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the documents on record and has submitted that the private respondent did not fulfill the gross family income criteria contained in the guidelines relatable to the selection of the retail outlet dealership and as this fact clearly stands demonstrated from the record, therefore the writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 4. A perusal of the writ petition demonstrates that when the same was filed, save and except an interview letter appended therewith, no other document was appended therewith to substantiate the allegations levelled in the writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that now the entire material is on record and it is apparent and evident from the documents that have been placed on record by the private 3 2025:HHC:6425 respondent that he was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. This is seriously disputed by learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, who stated that the said respondent was fulfilling the eligibility criteria and was duly eligible for the allotment of the dealership and in light of this very fact, the dealership was allotted to respondent No. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 further submitted that after the allotment, the Petrol Pump stood established and it is functional for more than two decades. Therefore, he submitted that with the passage of time, otherwise also, the petition has lost its efficacy and the same deserves dismissal. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent-Corporation also submitted that as the private respondent was fulfilling the eligibility criteria, it was only on that count that the dealership was allotted to him. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegations of the petitioner that the private respondent was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria are completely baseless and therefore also, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Chairman of the Selection Committee was retired Hon’ble Judge of the High Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the selection that was carried out by the Committee more so as it is not the allegation of the petitioner that the selection was either on the 4 2025:HHC:6425 basis of some legal malafides or on the basis of bias. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the pleadings and documents appended therewith and further taking into consideration the fact that the writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and today we are in the year 2025, and further the fact that no interim was granted in favour of the by this Court in favour of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that this petition has lost its efficacy with the passage of time. 8. Otherwise also, in light of the fact that the allegation of the petitioner that the private respondent was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria bears a seriously disputed question of fact, the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It is further weighing with the Court that as the private respondent established the dealership almost two decades back and is running the same now otherwise also, no fruitful purpose is going to be served by hearing the petition on merit. Accordingly, these proceedings are closed with liberty to the petitioner that in case he so desires, he may approach the appropriate Fora for redressal of his grievance, if any, where he can establish his case by leading evidence, if so advised. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5 2025:HHC:6425 (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 18, 2025 (narender)