SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 350

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
Mrs. Seema Raju Pol – Petitioners
VERSUS
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.6744 OF 2013.
Decided On : 09.03.2016.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Shedge Ranjit A.
For the Respondents: Mr.Sanket S.kulkarni.

Important Point – Petroleum dealership cannot be cancelled without complying with principles of natural justice.

Headnote:Government Contract – Petroleum Dealership – Cancellation of selection of petitioner for MS/HSD retail outlet dealership – Before cancellation of selection of petitioner, petitioner was not heard by respondents; no principles of natural justice were followed by respondents and action of respondents in cancellation of selection of petitioner was unilateral – Respondents after following proper procedure including evaluation of site offered by applicants, conducting interviews of petitioner along with other applicants and after verification of all documents, selected petitioner – Respondents have committed error in cancellation of selection of petitioner.

       Result – Writ Petition Partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Shinde, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage itself.

2. This petition has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents dated 6th July, 2013 of cancellation of the selection of the petitioner for MS/HSD retail outlet dealership on Lasur to Sultanabad new Mumbai Highway, District Aurangabad. The respondent – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Issued an advertisement in the newspaper Daily Lokmat on 13th March, 2012 inviting applications for the allotment of retail outlet dealership for MS/HSD. In the said advertisement, one retail outlet which is to be set up at Lasur Station to Sultanabad new Mumbai High Way was advertised. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that, the said location is reserved for “Open category for Woman”. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioner filed an application along with necessary documents. It is further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to receipt of the said application, the respondents verified the documents, carried out spot verification of the proposed site, approved the site and were satisfied on verification that, the said site is a proper place for allotment of outlet dealership. Upon satisfying themselves, the respondents called the petitioner for interview on 26th October, 2012. All the applicants including the petitioner appeared for the interview along with original documents and all the enclosures as stipulated in the application form. It is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents were satisfied with the documents submitted by the petitioner along with the application and upon verification and after satisfying themselves that there is compliance of the requirements, the Selection Committee evaluated performance of the petitioner and other applicants for the said location and the said committee after minute and detailed interview of the petitioner and others, declared selection of performance of the candidates and in the said statement, level-1, level-2 and level-3 committee has ranked and placed the petitioner in the first place in Open Category for Woman at Lasur to Sultanabad on New Mumbai Highway location. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner was allotted 83.47 marks which were based upon the capability to provide infrastructure and facility, capability to arrange finance, capability to generate business as well as other criteria. It is further case of the petitioner that, during the interview, the site selection report in respect of site offered by the petitioner was also shown. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has secured 16% more marks compared to the candidates at Sr.No.2. The petitioner has secured 16 to 17 marks ahead than its second empaneled candidate Mrs. Farzana Badshah Patel. In spite of selection of the petitioner, it is the case of the petitioner that, the respondents delayed the allotment of letter of intent without any reason. The candidate at Sr.No.2 namely Mrs. Farzana Badshah Patel filed an objection on the ground that, the petitioner has mentioned the relationship with owner of land as “spouse” in the application, which amounts to deliberate attempt on the part of the petitioner to conceal the important information which would attract the provisions of Clauses 10(K) and 21 of the Brochure for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers. The respondents on 6th July, 2013 cancelled selection of the petitioner Hence, this petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to various documents which are placed on record and submits that, inadvertently the petitioner, while filling in the Clause 11(c) i.e. 'Relation of the landlord with the applicant', has written “Spouse”. He ;further submits that, in fact, in clause 11(b), name of the owner of the land has been written as Pol Ravindra Bansidhar (Proof to be attached). He invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the said Pol R














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top