Petitioner challenged rejection of retail outlet dealership application citing company refusal based on suppressed facts and criminal involvement. High Court found no interference warranted, dismissing the writ petition.
Petition rejected; no direction issued to respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp1022-09.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1022/2009
Mangesh Prataprao More .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ... Respondents
Mr.D.P.Palodkar,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.A.P.Bhandari,Adv. for respondent no.2.
CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 7th DECEMBER, 2011
ORAL ORDER
1] The petitioner challenges the order passed by the
2 wp1022-09.odt
respondent no.2 on 5/12/2008. He prays for direction to respondent no.2 to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner to run retail outlet dealership at Vadgaonpan, District Ahmednagar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's second attempt to get the retail outlet dealership was negatived by the company at the instance of the persons who are running the retail outlet at present. This time, the company had rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had suppressed and misrepresented material facts in his application and he was involved in a criminal / economic offence involving moral turpitude.
2] On behalf of respondent no.2, affidavit in reply was filed. We have perused the same. The learned counsel for the company submits that the petitioner has suppressed material facts from the Corporation. The petitioner was arrested and he is released on bail in a criminal offence based on the F.I.R. filed by the police.
3] The counsel for the petitioner submits that involvement of offence in running a lottery business would not amount to offence
3 wp1022-09.odt
of moral turpitude, for cancellation of petitioner's application.
4] In the facts of the case, we find that the company had adopted a stand not to accept the application of the petitioner on the grounds stated in the impugned communication.
5] In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and in the facts of the case, no interference is warranted in the decision taken by the Indian Oil Corporation. There is no merit in the Petition. It is rejected.
(T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)
umg/wp1022-09
Mangesh Prataprao More
Union of India
Indian Oil Corporation
NARESH H.PATIL
T.V.NALAWADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
