JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. In this appeal the Order dated March 14, 2019 as passed in WP No. 14441 (W) of 2018 as passed by the learned Single Judge has been assailed by the appellant who was the writ petitioner before the Writ Court. By the impugned order learned Single Judge considered the subsequent report of BL&LRO regarding location of the proposed showroom of the private respondent no. 9 and found no infirmity in the action of the respondent no. 2/Oil Company and thus dismissed the said writ petition.

2. In support of the instant appeal learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant at the very outset submits before this Court that though the present appellant was initially selected for draw of selection of the LPG Distributorship but subsequently the writ petitioner/appellant was found to be disqualified. It has been contended further that from a reliable source the writ petitioner/appellant came to learn that the private respondent no. 9 also failed to fulfill the criteria for obtaining LPG Distributorship and accordingly the candidature of the private respondent no. 9 was cancelled. However in a clandestine manner the private respondent no. 9 was again selected