Dismissed

Ranubai Dashrath Vadankar v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2014WP/6705/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a public interest petition by a candidate selected for an interview but disqualified due to land location discrepancies. The Court held that the petitioner, who applied based on the correct interpretation of the advertisement, cannot invoke judicial relief to benefit from an obvious mistake in the Marathi version.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; no direction issued to quash the merit list.

Ranubai Dashrath Vadankar Vs Union of India… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

wp-6705.10

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6705 OF 2010

¶6

Ranubai Dashrath Vadankar … Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Kedar J. Patil a/w Ms. Trupti A. Bharadi, for the Petitioner. Mr. G.S. Godbole i/by Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, for the Respondent No.2. Mr. M.L. Patil, for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr. Ritesh Ratnam i/by Mr. Ganesh Gole, for Respondent No.5.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶9

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 17^th JULY, 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1] Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and the learned counsel representing the Respondents. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited published a public notice in daily newspaper on 17th August, 2009 inviting applications for grant of retail outlets. In this Petition, the Court is concerned with Item No.124 which is a location at Mhaishal Road (State Highway No.138) from Kilometer Nos.57 to 60. The Petitioner applied on the basis of the said advertisement. The Petitioner was called for interview. The merit list published by the Petroleum Corporation shows that for site inspection, the Petitioner was given zero marks. Hence, the Petitioner was not selected.

¶13

1 of 4

¶14

2 wp-6705.10

¶15

2] The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the description of the location incorporated in Item No.124 of the Marathi version of the advertisement is very vague. It does not suggest that the entire plot of land offered by the applicant for dealership should be within Kilometer Nos.57 to 60. He submitted that Marathi version of the advertisement shows that even if a part of the land available with the candidate is between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60, the candidate who offers such a land will be eligible. He urged that the policy of the Petroleum Corporation contemplates that only if the land offered by an applicant satisfies the criteria, the candidate is invited for interview. He urged that the very fact that the Petitioner was called for interview shows that Petroleum Corporation treated the land offered by the Petitioner as satisfying the criteria in the advertisement.

¶16

3] The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petroleum Corporation is that there is obviously a mistake in describing the location in Item No.124 in Marathi version but in English version, it is stated that the land should be between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60 on the Mhaishal Road. The learned counsel appearing for the other contesting Respondents submitted that even the Petitioner has correctly understood the advertisement to mean that the land offered must be in between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60.

¶17

2 of 4

¶18

3 wp-6705.10

¶19

4] We have carefully considered the submissions. There is some substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the description of location of the land in Item No.124 of the Marathi version of advertisement is vague. However, from the averments made in the Petition and from the prayers made in the Petition, we find that even the Petitioner has understood the relevant clause in the advertisement to mean that the land offered must be located in between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60. This fact is clearly reflected from the letter dated dated 28th June, 2010 submitted by the Petitioner herself to the Regional Manager of the Petroleum Corporation. In fact, in the said letter, she has specifically stated that the advertisement was for the location between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60 and the land offered by her is between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60. It will be also necessary to make a reference to the prayers made in the Petition. Prayer clause (b) which is the substantive prayer, reads thus :

¶20

“(b) By issuing appropriate writ in the nature of direction and order to quash and set aside the merit list published by the Respondent No.2 on 19.1.2010 in respect of retail outlet dealership at location Miraj / OML on MAHISAL ROAD (SH138) FROM KM. NO.57 to 60 in the interest of justice.”

¶21

5] Even prayers (d) and (e) which are for interim reliefs show

¶22

that even the Petitioner was aware that the advertisement was for the

3 of 4

wp-6705.10

location falling within Kilometer Nos. 57 to 60.

¶27

6] In the reply filed by the Petroleum Corporation in paragraph 4 thereof, a specific stand has been taken that a part of the land offered by the Petitioner is falling in between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60 but the other part of the land is beyond 60 Kilometers mark. There is a rejoinder filed by the Petitioner dealing with the said reply in which a contention has been raised that the advertisement provides that the starting point of the land should be anywhere between the Kilometer Nos.57 to 60 but the land can be even beyond the mark of the Kilometer No.60. This reply indicates that even the Petitioner proceeded on the footing that the entire land offered by her does not fall in between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60.

¶28

7] Though the Petitioner has correctly understood the advertisement to mean that the entire land offered has to be in between Kilometer Nos.57 to 60, now the Petitioner is trying to take advantage of an obvious error in the Marathi version of the advertisement. Therefore, this is not a fit case where interference should be made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶29

(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶30

4 of 4

Ranubai Dashrath Vadankar v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranubai Dashrath Vadankar v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Mohammedali Abdul Rehman Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Hemant Balaji Patil Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited, through Chief Manager and Ors.

M/S. Shield Protection Gurads Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra at the Instance of Principal Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Rohit Gera Vs Pune Contonment Board and Anr.

Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ranubai Dashrath Vadankar Vs Union of India and Ors.