(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

We have heard Counsel for the Appellant, the Respondent Corporation and for private Respondent no. 7.

2. The present Appeal arises from order dated 1.10.2012 allowing CWJC No. 2042 of 2011 preferred by respondent no. 7, the second empanelled candidate, questioning the selection and grant of retail outlet dealership to the Appellant. The learned Single Judge opined that the Appellant had presented an interpolated document with regard to lands offered for dealership amounting to a fraud on the Corporation. The Corporation has been directed to prepare a statement of facts and forward it to the Superintendent of Police, Siwan, for necessary action. Commissioning of the dealership has been directed to be kept in abeyance with liberty to advertise afresh.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant submits that the registered Lease Deed obtained by him from the land owner for establishing the retail outlet contained an inadvertent omission when it mentioned the plot no. as 757 instead of 787. The deed of correction to read as Plot no. 787 was executed on 14.8.2012. The landlord of Plot 787 had not denied having entered into a registered Lea