Allowed

Vandana Prakash Marawar v. Union of India and Others

Bombay HC2 Aug 2016WP/3560/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of her dealership application due to fund deposit in a co-operative bank. The court quashed the order rejecting her candidature based on a subsequent amendment to selection guidelines applicable to cases where letters of intent were not issued.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside and not to reject petitioner's candidature on the ground of deposit being made in a co-operative bank.

Vandana Prakash Marawar Vs Union of India and Others — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-3560.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3560 OF 2015

¶4

Vandana Prakash Marwar

¶5

...PETITIONER

¶6

versus

¶7

Union of India and others

¶8

...RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent No. 1 Mr. Alok M. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 2

¶10

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND

¶11

K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶12

DATED : 2^nd AUGUST, 2016.

¶13

Order :-

¶14

We have heard Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

¶15

Pursuant to advertisement dated 28-10-2014 inviting applications for Rural (Kisan Seva Kendra) Dealership, the petitioner had applied from open category for the site of Sugaon. The petitioner was communicated vide order dated 17-03-2015 that her candidature has not been found eligible for retail outlet dealership as fund is deposited in co-operative bank and not scheduled bank. According to the petitioner, the same was not mandate of the advertisement.

¶16

Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that subsequently guidelines have been amended and now respondent has accepted the funds deposited/kept in the any bank and guidelines

¶17

2 WP-3560.15

¶18

further states that all those cases where draw of lots and bidding process has been completed but letter of intents are not issued, all such cases are reviewed in light of the amended provisions.

¶19

In present case, it is not disputed that letter of intent has not been issued to any party. This court vide order dated April 1, 2015 had directed the parties to maintain status quo as on the said date.

¶20

In view of amendment made to the dealership selection guidelines and further that the same would be applicable to all cases where letters of intent were not issued, impugned order is quashed and set aside. Respondents shall not reject the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that deposit was made in the co-operative bank and not in the scheduled bank.

¶21

With aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

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

Vandana Prakash Marawar v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Prakash Marawar v. Union of India and Others

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

Bharat Appasaheb Mapari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suresh Bhagwan Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Vinita Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer M S E Distribution Co. Ltd. Anr.

Rajesaheb Shrikrushnarao Deshmukh and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Jame Masjid Kasum Kot Bk Trust, Amravati Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudarshan Nagar Nagrik Sangharsha Samiti and Ors. Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.