Dismissed

Suvarna Pravin Gavande v. Bharat Petrolum Company Ltd. through Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd. Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2011WP/3655/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed two writ petitions challenging a distributor's selection for denying eligibility based on non-residency. The court found statutory communications allowed relocation to the required village and verified the respondent's address through affidavits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed; any interim order stands vacated.

Suvarna Pravin Gavande Vs Bharat Petrolum Company Ltd… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

wp3655/3841 of 2011

¶4

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.:3655 OF 2011

¶7

¶8

Suvarna Pravin Gavande VERSUS

¶9

Bharat Petrolum Company Ltd Through Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd Nashik And Ors

¶10

¶11

None for Petitioner

¶12

Mr. R K Temkar For R No 7 Mr. Shelke Shivaji T. For R/9, Mr. V. D Hon For R/7, Mr S. D Kulkarni For R/1r/6, 8 And 10 Served. ***

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.:3841 OF 2011

Anil Laxman Alhat

VERSUS

Bharat Petroleum Corportion Ltd And Anr

¶19

¶20

Mr. Shelke Shivaji T. , Advocate for Petitioner Mr. A.G.P. for Respondent/State Authorities

¶21

Caveat Filed By Adv R.k.Temkar For Caveator Which is Kept With Wpst No 14908/11 Mr. Hon Vinayak D. Adv For Respdt 2 Mr. S. D Kulkarni For R/1

¶22

¶23

CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 5th AUGUST, 2011.

¶24

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶26

wp3655/3841 of 2011

¶27

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶28

¶29

PER COURT :-

¶30

1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

2] In these two writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged selection of respondent - Amol Chandrabhan Borade ( for short, `respondent- Borade') for award of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak ( supplier) , for village Kalas ( Bk), Taluka Akole, District Ahmednagar. The challenge in both the petitions is solely on the ground that the respondent - Borade is not resident of village Kalas.

¶32

3] We have heard Shri Shelke, yesterday for about 15 minutes and today for about 10-15 minutes and perused the documents relied upon by him in support of his contention. He submits that all the documents relied upon by respondent - Boarde to show that he is a resident of village Kalas are manipulated and they are not sufficient to prove that respondent - Borade is the resident of village Kalas ( Bk.).

¶33

4] Respondent - Boarde has filed reply affidavit in both the petitions. In the affidavit dated 14/5/2011 filed in Writ Petition No. 3841/2011, in para.8 thereof, in response to the challenge, has stated thus, :-

¶34

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶36

wp3655/3841 of 2011

¶37

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶38

¶39

"I say that I am resident of village Kalas (Bk.). 1) My name appears in the voters list of 216 Akole Legislative Assembly Constituency. 2) I am having telephone in may name at Kalas and BSNL had issued me bills at my address at Kalas. 3) Local authorities viz. Police Patil, Sarpanch, Talathi, Saja Kalas had also issued me certificates that I am resident of village Kalas. 4) Money orders through post are received by me on the address at Kalas. 5) Gam Panchayat, Kalas has passed resolution on 25.4.2010 to the effect that I am resident of villge Kalas. 6) On 26.4.2011 they have issued me no objection certificate for starting agency as I am resident of village”

¶40

In support of these statements on affidavit, he has also placed documents on record.

¶41

5] Mr. Shelke, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to all the documents relied upon by respondent – Borade to contend that all those documents were procured by him after the advertisement. In reply to this submission, our attention was invited by Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent – Corporation to the communication dated 11/3/2011, and clause 4.4. thereof, which reads thus :-

¶42

4.4) "Shift your resident to KALAS ( if you are presently staying away from the location) in order to

¶43

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶45

wp3655/3841 of 2011

¶46

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶47

¶48

personally operate the RGGLV as stated in para.3.3 above and give us a written undertaking to this effect."

¶49

This clause clearly shows that even if the candidate was not a resident of the village Kalas, he should shift his residence to village Kalas for running the agency. The documents on record and the reply affidavit, undoubtedly shows that respondent – Borade, is the resident of village Kalas.

¶50

6] Moreover, the respondent Corporation has also filed reply affidavit, stating therein, that they have verified that respondent - Borade is the resident of village Kalas. Similarly, Tahsilder has also filed reply affidavit, stating that respondent - Borade is the resident of village Kalas. It is against this backdrop, it would not be possible to examine the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, that the documents relied upon by respondent - Borade are all manipulated documents. Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶51

grt/-

Suvarna Pravin Gavande v. Bharat Petrolum Company Ltd. through Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd. Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvarna Pravin Gavande v. Bharat Petrolum Company Ltd. through Bharat Petroleum Company Ltd. Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Vinayakrao Patole Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Subhash Narayan Garkal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chudaman Dodhu Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Anilkumar Shobhachand Bedmutha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sakhahari Tukaram Chavhan and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Meerabai Dnyandeo Dongare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.