IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
Sandip Gorakh Naik – Petitioner
Vs.
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7889 of 2022
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Retail Outlet Dealership - Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. - Clause 4 (v), Note 2 - The court discussed the requirements of land for retail outlet for Group-1, Group-2, and Group-3 applicants. It highlighted the different land ownership and lease criteria for each group and emphasized the need for applicants to meet the eligibility criteria for the respective groups. The court also referenced a previous judgment to support the rejection of the petitioner's application due to non-compliance with necessary documents and defective application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his application for allotment of retail outlet dealership by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. due to non-compliance with land ownership and lease criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's application was rightly rejected as it did not meet the eligibility criteria for Group-1 and the documents submitted were not as per the requirement of Group-1.
Issues: Non-compliance with land ownership and lease criteria, rejection of the petitioner's application for retail outlet dealership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for applicants to meet the eligibility criteria for the respective groups and highlighted the importance of submitting necessary documents as per the requirement of the group applied for.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, heard finally.
2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the communications dated 6th October, 2021 and 25th October, 2021 issued by respondent No. 3 – Head of the Regional Office (Retail), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Nashik, rejecting the application of the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership of respondent No. 2 – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
3. By advertisement dated 25.11.2018, respondent No. 3 sought applications for appointment of dealers of retail outlet for various locations. At Sr. No. 786 of the said advertisement ‘village Patonda, on NH-753-B’ taluka Nandurbar is advertised. In response to the above advertisement, seven applications were received by respondent No. 3.
4. The petitioner filed his application on 21.12.2018 from Group-2 and offered land bearing Survey No. 19/2/B of village Dharajgaon for the retail outlet. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 sent e-mail to the petitioner on 9th January, 2020 and directed the petitioner to submit documents in respect of land offered by him. In response to the said communication, the petitioner had submitted documents as per the directions of respondent No. 3 on 27th January 2020 and 24th March 2021. By communication dated 7th May 2021, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that the documents of land, supplied by the petitioner are in respect of village Dhirajgaon, while the advertisement for dealership is for village Patonda and since the land offered is of different village, respondent No. 3 would not consider his application.
5. Thereafter, on 1st June 2021, by e-mail communication, the respondent No. 3 again informed the petitioner that his application would be considered in Group-3 and further directed the petitioner to offer alternate suitable land within three months in the advertised location. The petitioner submits that he had offered land from advertised location at village Patonda bearing land Gat No. 84/1/28 vide his application dated 12th August, 2021. The petitioner states that by e-mail dated 2nd September, 2021, respondent No. 3 informed the petitioner that he is the only eligible candidate available and that he has been declared as successful and a preliminary intimation for the selection of retail outlet of dealership is issued to him, subject to compliance of the terms and conditions.
6. The petitioner further submits that although he had given all the required documents, respondent No. 3 again issued a communication dated 6th October, 2021 and informed the petitioner that he has submitted two sets of documents for the land offered, having Gat Nos. 84/1/28 and 19/2/B and both are hand written and are not original and therefore, the documents cannot be relied upon.
7. The petitioner submits that in view of the above communication dated 6th October 2021, the petitioner on 26th October 2021, approached respondent No. 3 and pointed out that there are some technical problems with the website of the company and he had submitted the original documents in the office of respondent No. 3 manually on 9th September, 2021 and requested for consideration of the said documents. The petitioner further submits that although he had submitted all the required documents, he has again received E-mail dated 25th October, 2021, wherein he was directed to update the bank details for refund of ISD till 24th November, 2021. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the impugned communications dated 6th October, 2021 and 25th October, 2021, rejecting his application for allotment of dealership of retail outlet.
8. In response to the petition, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed affidavit of Shri Shashank Govind Dabhane, Deputy General Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Nashik. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that advertisement for dealership of retail outlet was issued on 25.11.2018. The petition
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.