Dismissed

Naresh S/O Khushalrao Dongre v. Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Bombay HC1 Feb 2012WP/504/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenge rejection of his candidature for an LPG distributorship due to non-compliance with land size conditions in the advertisement. Court upheld rejection finding no fault in relying on eligibility criteria.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as there was no fault in the order passed by the respondent.

Naresh S/O Khushalrao Dongre Vs Managing Director… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

0102wp504.12.odt

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.504 of 2012.

¶5

Naresh Khushalrao Dongre

¶6

..vs..

¶7

Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and anr.

¶8

=-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Court's or Judges Order Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶10

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

¶11

Mr. S.Wahane, Adv. for the petitioner.

¶12

 C ORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR AND

¶13

 P.B.VARALE, JJ.
DATED: 1stFEBRUARY, 2012.

¶14

By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/01/2012 passed by respondent no.2 by which the candidature of the petitioner in connection with the L.P.G. Distributorship under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitran Yojana is rejected.

¶15

As per advertisement issued by the respondents in the local newspaper ‘Lokmat’ dated 31/3/2010, the petitioner had applied for the LPG distributorship. It was the condition precedent in the advertisement that a suitable land belonging to the applicant, minimum area of 20 x 24 sq.mtrs in dimension, should be available for keeping cylinders in the storage godown.

¶16

The petitioner was selected for Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitarak Yojana. However, respondent no.2 – Hindustan Petroleum Corporation found that the information in connection with the dimensions of the land admeasuring 18.28 x 15.24 sq.mtrs. furnished

¶17

¶18

0102wp504.12.odt

¶19

by the petitioner does not fulfill the condition mentioned in the advertisement.

¶20

The petitioner had approached this court earlier and this court directed respondent no.2 – Corporation to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter heard by respondent no.2 - Corporation. A physical inspection of the land was also carried out. The Authority thereafter found that the petitioner was not having minimum storage area admeasuring 20 x 24 sq. mtrs. to meet the land eligibility criteria. During the course of hearing also the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that the petitioner was having that much area which was subject-matter of the advertisement. The authority has also considered the aspect that the petitioner has expressed his inability for the same and requested that if an opportunity is given to him he will procure another piece of land meeting the land eligibility criteria. However, the petitioner has not fulfilled the requirement prescribed in the advertisement in respect of the land. The Authority cannot deviate from the condition precedent prescribed in the advertisement. In these circumstances, we do not find any fault with the order passed by respondent no.2.

¶21

In view of what is stated above, we do not find any substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed.

JUDGE.

JUDGE

chute

0102wp504.12.odt 3

Naresh S/O Khushalrao Dongre v. Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh S/O Khushalrao Dongre v. Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Bhagwan S/O Pandhari Dandge Vs State of Mah. Dept. of Agri. Thr. Its Principal Secty. and 3 Ors.

Arvind Jeevanrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mandabai W/O Vijay Jadhao Vs the Returning Officer, Buldhana for Election of Z.P. and Panchayat Samiti and Sub Divisional Office