JUDGMENT Aftab H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.K. Talukdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Oil Corporation ('I.O.C.') assisted by Mr. A. Dutta learned Counsel representing IOC as well as Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.C. Choudhury learned Counsel representing the private respondent No. 4. 2. By means of this writ appeal the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 22.2.2005 passed by the writ court in the civil rule No. 5280/97 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant as the petitioner therein challenging the grant of dealership/distributorship Indene by IOC at Barpeta Road in favour of the original respondent No. 4, one Ranjit Kumar Das, the husband of the present respondent No. 4 herein who died sometimes in the year 2004 during the pendency of the writ proceeding before the learned Single Judge, was closed. 3. The basic allegation as pleased in the writ proceeding was that the dealership in question was primarily earmarked for physically handicapped persons and when both the appellant and the original respondent No. 4 were being handicapped person, the appellant had better right for consideration for such allotment as the degree of physical disability of the appellant was far more than of that of the deceased-respondent. No. 4 and that the Oil Selection Board did not adequately consider the case of the appellant for his selection. 4. The writ court, having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also taking note of the fact situation that after the death of the original respondent No. 4, the husband of the present respondent No. 4 whose allotment/selection of dealership in question was primarily challenged in the writ proceeding, IOC by order dated 4.6.2004 communicated to the present respondent No. 4 informing the decision of the Corporation to reconstitute the dealership earlier granted to her husband in her name and the agreement dated 5.6.2004 executed by and between the IOC and the present respondent No. 4 with regard to dealership in question, observed that neither the order dated 4.6.2004 nor the agreement dated 5.6.2004 which gave fresh cause of action, was ever challenged in the writ proceeding by way of bringing any amendment thereof. Under such circumstances the learned Single Judge rejected the prayer of the appellant with the followings observations: In the light of the above, I am unable to afford any relief to the petitioner in the writ petition under consideration. Accordingly, I close this writ application by granting leave to the writ petitioner to file afresh writ petition or to take such other legal steps as he may be advised in respect of the decision contained in the communication dated 4.6.2004 and the agreement dated 5.6.2004 as referred to hereinabove. Copies of the aforesaid communication dated 4.6.2004 and the agreement dated 5.6.2004 be placed on record of the present proceedings by the learned Counsel for the IOC where after Shri Talukdar may receive copies of the same. 5. In support of the appeal Mr. Talukdar, learned senior counsel, has forcefully argued that it was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the order dated 4.6.2004 or the agreement dated 5.6.2004 inasmuch as the fundamental grievance in the writ petition was that selection/allotment of the dealership in question in favour of the original respondent No. 4, i.e., Sri Ranjit Kr. Das was made arbitrarily, illegally, whimsically and in violation of all norms contemplated under the law and if this basic issue of unwarranted selection of original respondent No 4 for dealership in question and that too without considering the case of the appellant would have been properly decided by the writ court, the subsequent development by way of passing the order dated 4.6.2004 and agreement dated 5.6.2004 would have automatically become non-est. 6. Mr. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel, supporting the impugned findings of the writ court, has strenuously contended that since the fresh cause of action arose due to fresh reconstitution of the dealership with the present respondent No. 4 by order dated 4.6.2004 and execution of the agreement between IOC and the present respondent No. 4 on 5.6.2004, the writ petition itself became infructuous and no relief as sought could be granted to the appellant and the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in not accepting the writ petition. The writ court was wholly correct in grating leave to the appellant to file fresh writ petition or to take other legal steps if so advised. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the extensive arguments so placed on record by the learned Counsel for the parties. The writ court was wholly correct in grating leave to the appellant to file fresh writ petition or to take other legal steps if so advised. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the extensive arguments so placed on record by the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also meticulously scrutinized the entire pleadings exchanged by and between the parties. The appellant in his writ petition prayed for the following reliefs: It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships would be please not issue a rule, call for the records, ask the respondents to show cause as to why the impugned order awarding the Indane Distributorship at Barpeta Road to respondent No. 4 should not be set aside and after perusing the causes shown, if any, and hearing the parties set aside and quash the order of awarding the Indane Distributorship of the respondent No. 4 and/or as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should no be issued to direct and compel the respondents to allot the said Indane Distributorship at Barpeta Road to the petitioner and/or as to why and other writ or directions should not be issued to consider the Distributorship to the petitioner and/or to grant full relief to the petitioner and hearing the parties and on perusal of records and be pleased to make the Rule absolute. And The petitioner further prays that pending disposal of the rules, your Lordships would be pleased to stay the operation of the order of awarding the Indane Distributorship to respondent No. 4 and/or may be pleased to pass any other order/orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper. 8. Taking above prayer into account and having considered the subsequent development of reconstitution of the dealership in question with the present respondent No. 4 by IOC vide order dated 4.6.2004 and execution of agreement on 5.6.2004 between the IOC and the present respondent No. 4, we are of the firm view that since the order dated 4.6.2004 or the agreement dated 5.6.2004, as mentioned above, was not challenged in the writ petition by amending the same, the relief as sought in the prayer indicated above cannot be granted to the appellant in equity court. Admittedly the word "respondent No. 4" occurred in the prayer above quoted was the original respondent No. 4, the husband of the present respondent No. 4, who died in the year 2004 itself. 9. That being the position, we find that this writ appeal is bereft of any merit and the same stands dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.