Remanded

Sou. Sunanda Bharat Mali v. the State of Maharshtra through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Feb 2014WP/8228/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging denial of petroleum dealership due to unresolved dispute over High Tension cable existence during site inspection. High Court set aside impugned order and remanded matter for reconsideration by the Committee after petitioner produces additional documents, ensuring notice to the winning bidder.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dated 29th June 2011; complaint remanded to Committee for reconsideration after petitioner produces additional documents; Committee to pass fresh order within four months.

Sou. Sunanda Bharat Mali Vs the State of Maharshtra… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

wp8228

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8228 OF 2011

¶5

Sou Sunanda Bharat Mali ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

Mr.Ajay A. Joshi for the Petitioner
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for the respondent No.1
Mr.S.A.Bhalwal i/b M/s.Vyas & Bhalwal for respondent
No.2

¶7

Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent No.5

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 M.S.SONAK, JJ.
DATE : FEBRUARY 21, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned AGP for the respondent, learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned counsel
for the respondent No.5.

¶11

2On the basis of the advertisement published by
the respondent No.2 for grant of retail outlet
dealership of petroleum products at village Sangola,
District Solapur, the petitioner as well as
respondent Nos.5 and 6 applied for dealership. It
is not in dispute that from the land bearing Block
No.523/1B/2B which was offered by the petitioner,
High Tension electrical cable was passing through.
It appears that the respondent No.5 who was
ultimately granted a letter of intent, secured
75.71% marks and the present petitioner secured 46%

¶12

2 wp8228

¶13

marks. Based on the site inspection, the respondent
No.5 secured 90.6% marks. However, zero marks were
assigned to the petitioner on the site inspection on
the ground that High Tension electrical line was
passing through the land offered by her. It was
revealed that High Tension line of 33 KV was passing
through the land offered by the petitioner.

¶14

3Issue involved in this petition is whether High
Tension line was removed before the date of
inspection of the land which was admittedly carried
out on 20th October 2010.

¶15

4We have perused the guidelines for selection of
retail outlet dealers. Clause 13 of the guidelines
contemplates that technical commercial suitability
of the land offered by the petitioner shall be
ascertained by the committee of the second
respondent based on various parameters set out
therein. On the basis of the various documents
annexed to the petition, the submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that before
the date of inspection, High Tension line was
removed. The petitioner is relying upon various
documents including the letter dated 6th October 2010
issuedbyM/s.SamarthElectricalCompany.
M/s.Samarth Electrical Company, according to the
petitioner, was the Contractor appointed to remove
the High Tension line and the said letter records
that on 5th October 2010, the High Tension line was
removed. The learned counsel for the respondent
Nos.2 and 3 is relying upon the record of Technical

¶16

3 wp8228

¶17

Evaluation Committee which records the evaluation
of the site inspection made on 20th October 2010. It
further records that there was a 33 KV line passing
through the land offered by the petitioner. The
learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
opposes the petition on the ground that the said
report shows that on the date of site inspection,
the electric overhead line was still in existence.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 also
opposes the petition. He submits that the
respondent No.5 has commenced the business long
back.

¶18

5We have considered the submissions. We have
perused the order passed by the Committee which
dealt with the grievance made by the petitioner. The
Committee passed the order dated 29th June 2011. The
Committee has observed that the Technical Evaluation
of the subject location was carried on 20th October
2010. The Committee has observed that the line was
shifted after the advertisement as the cash receipt
issued by the Electricity Board produced by the
petitioner shows that it was issued on 16th September
2010. The Committee has observed that it is not
clear whether the line was shifted prior to or after
the site inspection. Thereafter the Committee
referred to the Technical Evaluation Committee (for
short “TEC”) record. The Committee observed that it
is possible that even though the complainant had
initiated action prior to the site visit, the actual
shifting of the line must have been done after the
site inspection. The order passed by the Committee

¶19

4 wp8228

¶20

indicates that the Committee was not sure whether
the line was shifted before or after 20th October
2010 when the inspection was carried out.

¶21

6If the High Tension 33 KV line was not in
existence on site inspection made on 20th October
2010, then zero marks could not have been assigned
to the land offered by the petitioner. There are
documents placed on record of the petition by the
petitioner which according to her show that the line
was shifted prior to 20th October 2010. As we find
that the Committee dealing with the complaint made
by the petitioner was in doubt whether the line was
shifted prior to or after the site inspection, we
are of the view that the Complaint Redressal
Committee will have to again look into the complaint
filed by the petitioner and especially the documents
on which the petitioner is relying upon in this
petition.

¶22

7The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has
stated that the respondent No.5 has already
commenced business. In the event of the Committee
accepting the grievance of the petitioner, before
taking any action against the respondent No.5, the
respondent No.2 will have to give sufficient
advance notice to the respondent No.5 of a period
not less than four weeks to enable the respondent
No.5 to take steps.

¶23

8Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing
the following order:

¶24

wp8228

¶25

¶26

(I) We set aside the Dealer Selection Complaint Redressal order dated 29^th June 2011;

¶27

(II) The complaint made by the petitioner shall be reconsidered by the Committee constituted by the respondent No.2 after permitting the petitioner to produce the additional documents;

¶28

(III) The concerned Committee shall pass a fresh order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today;

¶29

(IV) On the basis of the order passed by the Committee, if the respondent No.2 intends to take any adverse action against the respondent No.5, the respondent No.2 shall give four weeks' advance notice to the respondent no.5 to enable the respondent No.5 to take appropriate steps;

¶30

(V) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the grievance made by the petitioner and it is for the concerned Committee to look into the same and to pass appropriate order;

¶31

(VI) Needless to say that the Committee dealing with the complaint filed by the petitioner shall give an opportunity of being heard to the respondent No.5;

¶32

(VII) Petition is disposed of on above terms.

¶33

(M.S.SONAK,J.)

Sou. Sunanda Bharat Mali v. the State of Maharshtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sou. Sunanda Bharat Mali v. the State of Maharshtra through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Ismail Usman Raut and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Collector of Pune and Ors. Vs Shri. Dhondu Ganu Gavari Since Decd Though Lrs. Shri. Ankush Gopal Gavari

Chirag Yogendra Vyas Vs Ami Shah

Mrs. Shobha Rajgopal Jhamvar Vs Shri. Devidas Ramakrishna Pise and Ors.

Anil Sangmeshwar Surgihalli Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, State Excise and Ors.

Shri. Abhay Mahendra Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.