Dismissed

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Oct 2015WP/2899/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, who was eligible under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme but lost the lot to a lower-scoring candidate, challenged the draw of lots clause under Article 14. The Court held that since the marks were only for eligibility and the selection was done by lots, such a challenge was barred after participating in the process.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar Vs the… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2015)

wp-2899.13

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2899 OF 2013

¶6

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar … Petitioner Versus The Union of India and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar, for the Petitioner. Mrs. Nisha Valani, for the Respondent No.1. Mr. S.R. Page, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. P.G. Sarda, for Respondent No.5.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 8^th OCTOBER, 2015

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. The Petitioner made an application on the basis of an advertisement published by the Petroleum Companies for appointment of Distributors under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak Scheme (RGGLV). The Petitioner along with Respondent No.5 were held eligible. Thereafter, lots were drawn in which Respondent No.5 was selected.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out the list of eligible candidates which shows that the Petitioner had obtained 95 marks while the fifth Respondent had obtained 92 marks. He pointed out that in the Petition the Petitioner has challenged the

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

2 wp-2899.13

¶14

relevant clauses and in particular Clause No.12.2 of the brochure for selection of the Distributors under the said Scheme. His submission is that Clause No.12.2 which provides for selection by draw of lots is arbitrary, illegal and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. His submission is that the Petitioner ought to have been selected as he is best available candidate.

¶15

We have considered the submissions. With the full knowledge that the selection will be done by draw of lots out of the eligible applicants securing minimum qualifying marks, the Petitioner participated in the process. Therefore, it is not open for the Petitioner now to challenge the Clause No.12.2 which provides for selection by draw of lots. The marks have been assigned only to determine the eligibility. Hence, there is no merit in the Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶16

(V.L. ACHLIYA, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )

¶17

2 of 2

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Parmeshwar Chandrasa Kumbhar v. the Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi 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

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Their Regional Office No. 3 Vs Mrs. Susan Jose and Ors.

The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik Vs Ramchandra Bhadaji Jadhav(Dead)His LRS.1.JAYRAM R. Jadhav(Dead)His LRS.1A.DAMYANTI J. Jadhav and or

The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik Vs Shri. Trimbak Chotu Pawar and Anr.

Saroj Babubhai Kapadiya and Ors. Vs Nashik Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Nandvijay C.H.S. Ltd. Vs the Administrator Nandvijay C.H.S. Ltd., and Ors.

Mrs. Olga F. Mascarenhas Vs the Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Anr.