Disposed

Shri. Pralhad Gundhar Ingole v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2014WP/5587/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the non-compliance by the second respondent with a previous order dated 19th June, 2012, regarding a retail outlet dealership. The court, without deciding on merits due to the absence of a final decision, directs the respondents to comply with the earlier direction within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second and third respondents to take a decision in terms of a previous order dated 19th June, 2012, within three months.

Shri. Pralhad Gundhar Ingole Vs the Union of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-5587.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5587 OF 2013

¶6

Mr. Pralhad Gundhar Ingole … Petitioner Vs. The Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. G.N. Salunkhe i/by Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, for the Petitioner. Mr. Shivprasad S. Page, for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure, for Respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 19^th AUGUST, 2014

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent.

¶12

An advertisement was published by the second Respondent inviting applications for grant of Retail Outlet dealership at location of Sank, Taluka Jat, District Sangli. In the process of selection, the fourth Respondent is first in the order of merit. The Petitioner is the second in the order of merit.

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

2 wp-5587.13

¶15

It will be necessary to make a reference to the order dated 19^th June, 2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10878 of 2011 filed by the present Petitioner. In the said Petition, the Petitioner had questioned the eligibility of the fourth Respondent for being granted the dealership on the basis of the said advertisement. The submission of the Petitioner was that the land was offered by the fourth Respondent subsequent to the cutoffdate and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration. The Division Bench, while disposing of the Petition by order dated 19^th June, 2012, recorded the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent that the said Respondent will not take into account any document which has come into existence after the cutoffdate. The ultimate direction in this order is in paragraph 7 thereof, which reads thus :

¶16

“7. In the circumstances the petition is disposed of with the direction that the Company shall consider the status of the land offered by the respondent and its viability for the purpose of award of dealership in accordance with the documents submitted before the cut off date. Rule is made absolute in above terms.”

¶17

The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that in terms of the said order, the second Respondent has not taken any decision for last more than two years and that is how the case of the Petitioner has not been considered. The learned counsel

¶18

2 of 4

¶19

3 wp-5587.13

¶20

appearing for the second Respondent does not dispute that as of today, no decision has been taken by the second Respondent in terms of the said order. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent submits that as the Petitioner has raised objections to various authorities, the fourth Respondent is unable to make compliances with the conditions incorporated in the Letter of Intent.

¶21

The admitted position which emerges is that the second Respondent has not complied with the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the order dated 19^th June, 2012. The direction ought to have been complied with within a reasonable time as this Court has not fixed any outer limit.

¶22

It is not necessary for us to enter into the merits of the rival submissions made by the Petitioner and the fourth Respondent on merits of the controversy inasmuch as there is no final decision taken as yet by the second Respondent. Hence, by keeping the contentions of the parties expressly open, we pass the following order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) We direct the second and third Respondents to take appropriate decision in terms of the directions contained in paragraph 7 of the order dated 19^th June,

3 of 4

wp-5587.13

2012 in Writ Petition No.10878 of 2011 as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of three months from today;

¶29

(ii) The Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶30

(iii) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this

¶31

order.

¶32

(G.S. KULKARNI, J )

¶33

(A.S.OKA, J )

¶34

4 of 4

Shri. Pralhad Gundhar Ingole v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Pralhad Gundhar Ingole v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister 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

Shri. Hiren Shashikant Pandya Vs Smt. Meghna Hiren Pandya Nee Meghna Chandravadan Bhatt

Kanchandevi Kothari and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shri. Pralhad Gundhar Ingole Vs the Union of India, through Secretary, Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister and Ors.

Kot Bahar Masjid Trust, through Chief Trustee, Mursaleen N. Jalal Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Maharashtra State, Wakf Board and Ors.

Asrec (India) Ltd. Vs Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, State of Maharashtra and Ors.