1. Heard Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.D. Chatterji, learned senior Advocate for the Indian Oil Corporation
(respondent Nos. 1 & 2).
2. Since this case has been heard for the first time, no notice has been issued to respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
3. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the letter dated 21.06.2018 by which the complaint made by the petitioner has been
rejected but allegedly without consideration of the materials placed before the respondents in the aforesaid complaint.
4. It has been submitted that the investigation on the complaint by the petitioner has been done in a perfunctory manner and no consideration has been
accorded to the real issues in the complaint.
5. From the perusal of the communication dated 21.06.2018, it appears that five complaints were lodged against the concessionaire of respondent Nos.
1 and 2, who has constructed an L.P.G. godown in Village- Mashrak in the District of Saran. The complaints appear to have been dealt with in quite
detail. The aforesaid communication further indicates that some of the complaints were required to be dealt with by other authorities and, therefore,
the Indian Oil Corporation would not have anything to say regarding such complaints.
6. With respect to the other complaints, it was found out by the Investigating Officer that there is a land dispute between the distributor and the
petitioner. The other complaints which were looked into revelaed that the L.P.G. godown of M/s. Bhawani Shankar Indane, Mashrak had been
constructed on plot No. 6586, khata No. 957 in the District of Saran and the allegations against such distributor was not at all substantiated during
investigation.
7. This Court has assayed at the aforesaid communication, but does not consider it appropriate to make any interference with the same.
8. On the pointed question being asked by the petitioner about his locus, the response is that the L.P.G. godown has been constructed on the land
which has been leased by the petitioner to the aforesaid dealer, which he now wants to take back.
9. The petitioner would have several opportunities and forums to agitate for the aforesaid relief.
10. This Court but, even if there is some truth in the allegation, cannot direct the respondents to cancel the allotment of the licence to run the godown
of L.P.G. on such complaints.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown to this Court some communications by the District Magistrate-Cum-Collector and the authorities
under the Explosive Act, who have not taken cognizance of the complaints lodged by the petitioner against the dealer.
12. The petitioner, it is reiterated, shall have ample opportunities to assail such orders. This forum of law cannot but be permitted to be used as a field
to operate in for settling the private disputes.
13. No mandamus can be issued to the respondents for executing the prayer made in this writ petition. The petition has no merits and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
14. The dismissal of the writ petition, however, will not prevent the petitioner from availing of the remedies under the law.
