Disposed

Dhananjay Baban Kamble v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Bombay HC28 Jun 2016CA/8994/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An LPG distributorship applicant facing a show cause notice due to a post-application vacancy in his property title was granted temporary relief to submit fresh evidence before the cutoff date.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to make a representation to the respondents within two weeks; the show cause notice cannot be acted upon during the subsequent three-month decision period.

Dhananjay Baban Kamble Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation… — Consumer Protection | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP10278.13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10278 OF 2013

¶4

Dhananjay S/o. Baban Kamble

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Through Territory Manager (LPG), Territory Office, Solapur LPG Bottling Plant at Chinchol MIDC A/P Sawleshwar and another .. Respondents

¶8

Shri P. R. Katneshwarkar h/f Shri R. D. Raut, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Shri S. D. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents.

¶10

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8994 OF 2016

¶11

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2016.

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Respondents the Petitioner applied for the L. P. G. Distributorship. The Petitioner was selected. Even, letter of intent was issued in favour of the Petitioner. Subsequently on 22^nd September, 2013 show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner suggesting withdrawal of letter of intent for non fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the said letter of intent. The learned counsel submits that, the Petitioner had given the property which was standing in the name of his family unit. However, because of the subsequent event the

¶14

2 WP10278.13

¶15

problems cropped up. The Petitioner gave his own property. However, at the relevant time the Petitioner had an unregistered sale deed in his favour. Subsequently the said vendor has executed registered sale deed in favour of the Petitioner and the said registered sale deed would revert back to the date of agreement of sale. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of, A. Jitendernath V/s. Jubilee Hills Coop. House Bld. Soc. And antoher reported in 2006 (10) SCC 96.

¶16

Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the Respondents, states that, the Petitioner is required to possess and own the land prior to the cut off date i.e. on the date of application. The registered sale deed executed subsequently would not be of any assistance to the Petitioner. However, the Petitioner may approach the authorities in that regard.

¶17

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

¶18

Considering the subsequent event i.e. registered sale deed being executed in favour of the Petitioner it would be appropriate for the Petitioner to approach the Respondents by making an appropriate application / representation and filing the necessary documents. The said application / representation shall be filed within a period of two (2) weeks from today. The Respondents shall consider the said application / representation expeditiously, on its own merits, in accordance with law, within three (3) months. The Petitioner may present himself before the authorities and is entitled to place on record all the relevant facts and the position of law.

¶19

3 WP10278.13

¶20

Till the time the decision is taken by the Respondents upon the application / representation of the Petitioner the impugned show cause notice shall not be acted upon.

¶21

In case, the representation / application of the Petitioner is not considered positively by the Respondents liberty to the Petitioner to assail the same.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶23

In view of disposal of Writ Petition, Civil Application also stands disposed of.

¶24

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶25

sam/June.16

Dhananjay Baban Kamble v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjay Baban Kamble v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Balasaheb Chormunge Vs the Union of India, through Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi

Kalyan Ganpatrao Kadam and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Meera Bhagwan Kale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kaduba Ramrao Doiphode Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Chalisgaon Taluka Sahakari Dudh Udpadak Sangh Ltd. ,Chalisgaon Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dadahari Maruti Bedre and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.