Dismissed

Shri. Sardar Shamrao Mangalekar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2014WP/3844/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition challenging the selection of a third respondent for a Kisan Seva Kendra dealership, finding the authority acted in accordance with policy circulars regarding overhead electricity lines.

What did the court decide?

No reason to disturb the selection of the third respondent; petition rejected.

Shri. Sardar Shamrao Mangalekar Vs Indian Oil… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-3844.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3844 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Sardar Shamrao Mangalekar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Umesh R. Manakapure, for the Petitioner. Mr. Sunil Gangan a/w Mr. Jayesh Mestry i/by M/s. RMG Law Associates, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 11^th MARCH, 2014

¶13

P.C.

¶14

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

¶15

the learned counsel appearing for the first and second Respondents. An advertisement was published by the first Respondent on 15th February, 2011 for allotment of Kisan Seva Kendra (Retail Outlet) Dealership at various locations specified therein. In this Petition, we are concerned with the location at Village Nagthane, Taluka Palus, District Sangli. There were five applicants for the said location including the Petitioner and the third Respondent. Four of them were found to be eligible. Three of them were called for interview. It appears that the third Respondent was selected. Lateron, the Petitioner learnt that the land

¶16

1 of 3

¶17

2 wp-3844.13

¶18

proposed by the third Respondent was affected by high tension 11 KV electricity line. The contention raised in the Petition is that the third Respondent applied for the shifting of the electricity line on 8th August, 2011 which shows that at the time of the inspection of the site, the electricity line was very much in existence. The challenge in this Petition is to the result declared by the Selection Committee by which the third Respondent was selected. The challenge is essentially on the ground that on the date of advertisement and even on the date of site visit, the high tension electrical cable was passing through the land offered by the third Respondent.

¶19

There is a reply filed by Shri Arun Thakle, Manager (Retail Sales) of the first Respondent. In the reply, the reliance is placed on policy circular on 20th August, 2009. It is stated that the said policy circular provides that a land having over head High Tension Line of more than 11 KV offered by a candidate will not be considered. It is stated that as per the said policy circular, if overhead line is of 11 KV or less than 11 KV, the same would not operate as a disqualification. However, zero marks will be assigned to the site in such a case. It is disclosed that the site committee awarded zero marks to the site as per the said policy to the third Respondent. A reliance is placed in the affidavit on a certificate issued by the Competent Authority recording

¶20

2 of 3

¶21

3 wp-3844.13

¶22

that the High Tension Line passing through the site offered by the third Respondent has been shifted.

¶23

After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we find that the first and second Respondents have acted as per the policy reflected from the policy circular dated 20th August, 2009 and therefore, the site offered by the third Respondent could not have been discarded on the ground that over head electrical line was passing through it.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the fact that there was over head electricity line passing through the site was not disclosed by the third Respondent and he ought to have been disqualified. However, we find that the said ground is not agitated in the said Petition.

¶25

We find no reason to disturb the selection of the third Respondent. There is no merit in the Petition and, therefore, the same is rejected.

¶26

3 of 3

Shri. Sardar Shamrao Mangalekar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sardar Shamrao Mangalekar v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Ors.

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

Anandrao Kashinath Sawant and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kalyan Dattatray Patil and Ors. Vs the District Collector,Solapur and Ors.

Ramchandra Laxman Pardole (Since Decd) through Lrs and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Tukaram Shivling Lale Vs Ajit Ratanchand Shah and Ors.

Avinash Tukaram Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice Dept and Ors.

Akhil Maharashtra Manav Hakka Adhikar Sangharsha Samitee, Upsamiti Sawantwadi, through President Vs Public Information Officer , Dist. Supply Officer Sindhudurg and Ors.