Disposed

Saroj Akshay Jaiswal v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2014WP/6083/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition contesting the allotment of a retail petroleum outlet. The respondent withdrew her intent to compete, prompting the court to direct the petroleum company to reconsider the petitioner's application if a fresh one is submitted, and to dispose of the current petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of. The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's application if she tenders it within three weeks, and the company must decide expeditiously within four weeks

Saroj Akshay Jaiswal Vs the Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp6083-12.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6083/2012

¶5

Smt.Saroj w/o Akshay Jaiswal

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] The Union of India Through its Secretary Petroleum Ministry, New Delhi.

¶9

2] Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd [A Govt.of India Enterprise] Aurangabad Retail Regional office G-39, Town Center, CIDCO P.B.667, Aurangabad-431 003 Through Senior Regional Manager-Retail.

¶10

3] General Manager-Retail Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd [A Govt.of India Enterprise] Aurangabad Retail Regional office G-39, Town Center, CIDCO P.B.667, Aurangabad-431 003 Through Senior Regional Manager-Retail.

¶11

4] Smt.Nirmala Ganesh Chaudhari Age 39 years, Occ-Service

¶12

¶13

wp6083-12.odt

¶14

R/o At post Lohara, Tq. Pachora Dist.Jalgaon

¶15

Respondents

¶16

… Mr.A.V.Sakolkaar h/f Mr.V.G.Sakolkar,Adv.for petitioner. Smt.Anjali Bajpai Dube,Adv.for Respondent nos.2 & 3. Mr.M.M.Joshi,Adv.for Respondent no.4.

¶17

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ. DATED: 23rd June, 2014

¶18

PER COURT :-

¶19

The petitioner as well as respondent no.4 tendered applications in response to the advertisement issued by the Petroleum Company for allotment of retail petroleum outlet. The Petroleum Company selected respondent no.4. However, selection of respondent no.4 was challenged by petitioner by tendering an application with the grievance cell.

¶20

2] According to the petroleum company, since there was no merit in the complaint made by petitioner against respondent no.4, her application has been turned down by grievance cell. Respondent no.4 now expressed her desire not to compete with the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the

¶21

3 wp6083-12.odt

¶22

concerned respondent on instructions states that the respondent no.4 is not interested in accepting the letter of intent and to start up a retail petroleum outlet. It would be open for respondent no.4 to tender appropriate application with the petroleum company and on presentation of such application, respondent no.2 petroleum company may take appropriate decision in the matter. Counsel for respondent no.4 on instructions states that appropriate application will be tendered to respondent nos.2 and 3 within 3 weeks from today.

¶23

3] On presentation of such application, the petroleum company shall take decision as expeditiously as possible preferably within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of such application. With directions as above, Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶24

[V.L.ACHLIYA,J.]

¶25

[R.M.BORDE,J.]

¶26

umg

Saroj Akshay Jaiswal v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Akshay Jaiswal v. the Union of India 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

Nilesh Ranjit Bhoite and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others

Hemchandra Jagannath Kale Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Prachu Shivajirao Palampalle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sambhaji Bajirao Ghodajkar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rutuja Kiran Sapkal U/G, Kiran Deorao Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others