Dismissed

Sau. Jayashri Dilipraj Patil through Poa Prabhakar Patil v. Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Feb 2016WP/1548/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging a No Objection Certificate granted to a rival dealership applicant. The court held the petitioner lacked locus standi as she had no prior right to the land and no personal status affected by the order, also noting that she had failed to challenge the initial dealership selection.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sau. Jayashri Dilipraj Patil through… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

wp1548

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1548 OF 2016

¶5

Sau.Jayashri Dilipraj Patil through
P.A. Prabhakar Ramhari Patil ...Petitioner
vs.
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms Manjiri Parasnis for the Petitioner
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 10
Mr.Ajay Khaire for respondent Nos.11 and 12
Mr.Wasim Samlewale i/b Mr.Mankapure for respondent
No.13.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 C.V.BHADANG, JJ.
 DATE : FEBRUARY 4, 2016

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

.Not on board. Taken on board.

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.2 to 10.
We have also heard the learned counsel for
respondent Nos.11 and 12 as well as the learned
counsel for the respondent No.13. A letter of
intent was issued by the respondent No.11 on 7th May
2013 by which the respondent No.11 (BPCL) appointed
the respondent No.13 as a Retail Outlet Dealer at a
particular location. The petitioner had also
applied for grant of the dealership. However, the
petitioner was not selected and the respondent No.13
was selected. The petitioner has not challenged the
selection of respondent No.13 which was made way

¶11

2 wp1548

¶12

back in the year 2013. What is challenged by the
petitioner in the present petition is the No
Objection Certificate granted by the District
Collector on 21st December 2015 to the respondent
No.13 for the purpose of construction of Petrol and
Diesel Pump on the land of the respondent No.13.

¶13

2The petitioner has not challenged the
dealership granted to the respondent No.13 way back
in the year 2013. The petitioner has no right,
title or interest in respect of the land in respect
of which No Objection Certificate has been granted
by the District Collector. The petitioner is not
personally affected by it. Thus, the petitioner has
no locus to maintain this petition under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. Considering the fact
that the petitioner competed with the respondent
No.13, even a PIL on the subject matter will not be
maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.
Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and
the same is rejected.

¶14

3However, we make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on the issue of legality and validity
of the No Objection Certificate issued by the
District Collector.

¶15

(C.V.BHADANG,J.)

Sau. Jayashri Dilipraj Patil through Poa Prabhakar Patil v. Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sau. Jayashri Dilipraj Patil through Poa Prabhakar Patil v. Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Maruti Kedari Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sanskar Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Mr. Ajeet Shankarlal Bhatia Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shree Agartad Shree Shantinathji Maharaj Jain Trust Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Mubeen Ahmed Fakruddin Kodare Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Kewalbai Dyanoba Waghmare Vs Anil Narayan Joshi and Ors.