A writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging his rejection as a dealer for retail sale of petroleum products. The court rejected the petition, holding that factual disputes regarding land specifications and site distances could not be entertained under Article 226.
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.
wp241413.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2414 OF 2013
Premsing s/o Gabru Chavan
Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & others
Respondents
Mr.S.D.Hiwrekar, advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Mr.S.S.Kulkarni, advocate holding for Mr.S.D.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE :03rd May, 2014
PER COURT:
1 The petitioner tendered an application claiming appointment as dealer for retail sale of petroleum products in pursuance to the advertisement issued by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited on 14.10.2011. The candidature of the petitioner has been turned down, whereas, another candidate by name Gurupratapsing Jabinda has been declared successful and the Petroleum Corporation has issued letter of intent in his favour. The successful candidate has secured 62.31% marks, whereas, the petitioner has secured only 23.67% marks out of 100. The petitioner has been awarded zero marks for the land, which does not meet the specifications provided for by the Petroleum Corporation.
{2}
wp241413.odt
2 The petitioner tendered an application to the Grievance Cell raising grievance, however, same has been turned down by an order dated 07.01.2013. It is recorded in the order passed by the Grievance Cell that the site offered by the petitioner is at a distance of 53 meters from intersection and the site being located on National Highway, the same does not meet N.H.A.I. criteria and as such, the petitioner has been awarded zero marks.
3 Although the petitioner states that his land is situate at a distance of 300 feet from the intersection, the question raised in the petition being of a disputable nature, cannot be gone into in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4 The petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in this Court as a condition for directing re-measurement at the instance of third party, however, the petitioner did not show his willingness to deposit the amount, as directed. There is nothing on record to indicate that the decision taken by the Petroleum Corporation is erroneous or mala fide. The findings of facts, which the petitioner expects this Court to look into, cannot be considered.
5 Writ Petition is devoid of substance and hence stands
rejected.
R.M.BORDE
JUDGE
JUDGE
adb/wp241413
A.M. BADAR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can reconsider the factual findings of the Petroleum Corporation regarding land specifications and site distance.
Whether the dismissal of the grievance by the Grievance Cell warrants judicial intervention under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Premsing s/o Gabru Chavan
Union of India
R.M.BORDE
A.M.BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
