A writ petition becomes infructuous when subsequent actions, such as appointing another distributor, are not challenged by the petitioner.

ORDER :

Kuldeep Mathur, J.

By the impugned order dated 19.02.2019, the learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent- Maina Bano (hereinafter referred to as ‘Writ Petitioner’) praying inter alia that by an appropriate order or direction the appellant-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (for brevity ‘BPCL’) may be directed to award LPG distributorship in her favour for the location Village Kakrala as notified in the advertisement dated 23.08.2017. The directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant- BPCL while disposing of the writ petition filed by the Writ Petitioner reads as under:-

“4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to make appropriate corrigendum in the advertisement and thereafter consider the case of the petitioner who is admittedly resident in village ‘Kankrala’ and in view of the submissions made by the respondents in para 7 that accordingly to guidelines would be given first priority, the applicant who resides in village ‘Kankrala’ will be given first priority for the location advertised as there is no other persons from the said village. The exercise in this regard shall be conducted by the respondents positively within a period of two months.

5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.”

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that an advertisement dated 23.08.2017 was issued by the appellant- BPCL inviting applications from eligible candidates for allotment of LPG distributorship for various locations in the State of Rajasthan including the location of Village Kakrala, Tehsil Kakrala, Gram Panchayat Kakrala, District Bikaner. The respondent no.1- Writ Petitioner was one of the applicants. During the selection process, it came to the knowledge of the appellant- BPCL that the Gram Panchayat and Tehsil in relation to the advertised location ‘Kakrala’ were wrongly shown. Upon noticing the aforesaid error, it was decided that by cancelling the selection process initiated for the aforesaid location, a fresh advertisement with the correct name of Village Kakrala, Tehsil Poogal, Gram Panchayat Tharusar at District Bikaner may be issued. The information of the aforesaid development was supplied to the respondent no.1- Writ Petitioner through the communication dated 25.08.2018. The appellant- BPCL thereafter on 25.12.2018 re-advertised for the location of Village Kakrala with correct Gram Panchayat and Tehsil. The respondent no.1- Writ Petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to re-advertisement for the location and submitted her application form. The appellant- BPCL thereupon completed the selection process wherein a decision to allot LPG distributorship in relation to location advertised in favour of some other candidate was taken. Aggrieved by the aforementioned inaction of the appellant- BPCL, the respondent no.1 preferred a writ petition before the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction that she may be appointed as an LPG distributor for the advertised location by treating her in L-1 category.

3. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.05.2019 while issuing show cause notice to the respondents was pleased to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 19.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. During pendency of the present special appeal, vide order dated 28.05.2020 M/s Asharfi Bharatgas has been appointed as LPG distributor for the location Village Kakrala, Tehsil Poogal, Gram Panchayat Tharusar at District Bikaner. A copy of the agreement dated 28.05.2020 signed on behalf of BPCL and M/s Asharfi Bharatgas was presented before this Court which was taken on record. However, no challenge to the agreement dated 28.05.2020 whereby M/s Asharfi Bharatgas was selected as LPG distributor at Village Kakrala, Tehsil Poogal, Gram Panchayat Tharusar at District Bikaner has been made by anyone including the respondent no.1- Writ