This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the selection of a petitioner for a dealership license on the ground that the land offered lacked clear title. The Court held that the responsible company was obligated to verify title and lease rights before entering the agreement.
The writ petition was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
( 1 ) wp372.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 372 OF 2017
Vishnudas s/o. Gopal Shinde
..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents
Mr.S.B. Solanke, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.S.S. Raut, A.G.P. for respondent/State.
Mr.A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr.V.D. Gunale, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :24.08.2017
P.C. :-
1.The petitioner is objecting to selection of
respondent No.4 for award of dealership licence for sale
of petroleum products on behalf of respondent No.2-
Company. The objection is raised by the petitioner, who
is one of the participants in the selection of process,
on the ground that the land offered by the respondent
does not have clear title; i.e. the title of the
concerned respondent appears to be disputable. It is
contended that lease agreement has been placed on record
by the said respondent to substantiate his claim as
regards availability of requisite piece of plot. The
agreement is executed by Nilesh Majage and Bhagwan Sangve
in favour of respondent - Vithal Arjune. The petitioner
has invited our attention to the power of attorney
alleged to have been executed by one Nandkumar Kulkarni,
who is owner of the property in favour of Bhagwan Sangve.
It is contended that the document i.e. power of attorney
is antedated and created on subsequent date to suit the
claim of the respondent. The contention as regards
fabrication of the documents or the same being antedated
has not been substantiated. The petitioner also contends
that there are certain sale transactions in respect of
property which have been over looked by the company.
2.The Counsel appearing for the Company states
that the lease agreement entered into between respondent
No.4 with the owner has been saved even under the
subsequent transactions.
3.It may not be necessary to dwell into question
of validity and legality of title of respondent No.4,
since while executing the agreement, it would be
responsibility of respondent No.2 to consider all the
relevant aspects and only after being satisfied as
regards title/lease hold rights of respondent No.4,
agreement needs to be entered into. The respondent No.2
shall have to look into the aspect of the respondent’s
title/lease hold rights before entering into agreement.
We are of the view that respondent No.2-Company which is
offering finance to respondent No.4 shall be responsible
to consider all relevant aspects and it is expected to
protect its own interest.
4.In view of above discussion, the writ petition
is dismissed.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [R.M.BORDE,J.]
snk/2017/AUG17/ wp372.17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the selection of a dealership license holder on ground that the land offered does not have clear title.
Vishnudas s/o. Gopal Shinde
The State of Maharashtra
Company
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Respondent No.4
R.M. Borde
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court