Dismissed

Ahmed Mohib Syed v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018WP/4144/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's application for a retail outlet deal by Indian Oil Corporation. The Court held the internal grievance forum was not a quasi-judicial authority requiring notice, and factual disputes regarding land partition fell outside writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the grievances raised, including breach of natural justice and factual controversies regarding land partition, did not warrant interference in writ proceedings.

Ahmed Mohib Syed Vs the Union of India and Others — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

4144.18wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4144 OF 2018

¶5

Ahmed s/o Mohib Syed,
Age: 44 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o Kranti Chowk, Parbhani,
Tq. & Dist. Parbhani..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The Union of India

¶8

2. The State of Maharashtra (deleted as per Court's order dtd.24/4/2018)

¶9

3.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Indian Oil Bhawan, B.K.C.,
Plot C-33, G-Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-0051,
Through its Deputy General
Manager (Retail Sales)

¶10

4.Senior Divisional Retail Sales
Manager, Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., Aurangabad Divisional Office,
Indian Oil Bhawan, Plot No.99,
Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad-431 005

¶11

5.Kailash s/o Digamber Golait,
Age; 40 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o. Dr. Dagdu hospital,
near Main Road, Manwat,
Tq. Manwat, Dist. Parbhani..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for
petitioner;
Mr D. G. Nagode, Advocate for respondent No.1;
Mr A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for Resp.Nos.3 & 4;
Mr M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.5

¶13

4144.18wp

¶14

(2)

¶15

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE,JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶17

ORAL ORDER :

¶18

Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing

¶19

for the petitioner at length.

¶20

2.The petitioner is before this Court
challenging the communication dated 28th March,

¶21

2018 issued by the authority of respondent No.3
i.e. Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( hereinafter

¶22

referred to as, 'IOC Ltd.,' for the sake of

¶23

brevity). The grievance of the petitioner is
respondent-IOC Ltd., issued a publication in the
newspaper daily 'Lokmat' dated 28th October, 2014
including applications from the interested persons

¶24

and the parties for appointing retail outlet
dealers. The petitioner was interested to seek his
claim insofar as the place namely on National

¶25

Highway No. 222 between K.m. Stone of 438 to 439
from Manvat to Parbhani at left side, District

¶26

4144.18wp (3)

¶27

Parbhani. The petitioner being interested candidate
in open category in response to the advertisement
submitted his application along with necessary
details. Respondent No. 5 was also one of the
interested candidate. By communication dated 4th
March, 2015 ( copy of the same is placed on record
at Exhibit-G), IOC Ltd., called upon the petitioner
to remain present before the authority with
required documents.

¶28

3.The submission of Mr. Patil, learned
Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, as the
proposal of the petitioner was completed in all
respect, the petitioner was called upon and the
petitioner was having every hope of positive order
in his favour. Mr. Patil, learned Counsel invited

¶29

our attention to the communication dated 4th
August, 2016. He submitted that the petitioner came

¶30

to know that in stead of petitioner, respondent No.
5 was selected. Mr. Patil then submitted that
proposal of respondent No.5 ought not have been
entertained by the IOC Ltd., as proposal of

¶31

4144.18wp (4)

¶32

respondent No.5 was having certain deficiencies. He
then submitted that a detailed representation was
submitted in the form of grievance/complaint to the
Divisional Manager of IOC Ltd., on 19th September,
2016 and grievance/complaint of the petitioner was
turned down without assigning any reason and
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, by communication dated 28th March,
2018. The submission of Mr. Patil, learned Counsel
is, such a course adopted by respondent IOC Ltd.,
is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

¶33

4.Mr. Patil, learned Counsel then invited

¶34

our attention to certain documents placed on
record. He then submitted that a partition deed
was effected between brothers namely respondent
No.5 and his brother Padmakar. Copy of the said
partition deed is placed on record. It is then
submitted by Mr. Patil that out of area of 88 Are,
by way of partition deed, respondent No. 5 was
allotted southern area to the extent of 44 Are,
whereas his brother Padmakar was allocated and

¶35

(5)

¶36

allotted rest of 44 Are area to the northern side.
It was only submission that as per partition deed,
these two brothers were owner and possessor of
their respective shares to the extent of 44 Are and

¶37

they had no concern in the area allotted to them
respectively. Mr. Patil then submitted that
respondent – IOC Ltd., refers to the verification
of the area and copy of the lay out which was
placed on record annexed to affidavit in reply
filed on behalf of IOC Ltd.

¶38

5. The submission of Mr. Patil, learned

¶39

Counsel is, sketch refers to the area which is more

¶40

than 44 Are and if the partition deed is
considered, area in the sketch fails to match with
the area in the partition deed. With these
submissions, Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner prays for quashing and setting
aside the order impugned in the petition.

¶41

6. Per contra, Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel

¶42

appearing for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submitted

¶43

4144.18wp (6)

¶44

that inbuilt mechanism is provided under the
guidelines of IOC Ltd., to consider the grievance
and it is known as grievance redressal mechanism.
Mr. Bhandari, learned Counsel by inviting our
attention to the affidavit in reply submitted that
the authorities of IOC Ltd., undertook exercise of
verification of the documents. On the assessment of
the documents and on the basis of physical
verification of the land and on the basis of sketch
prepared by the authorities, redressal mechanism
forum of IOC Ltd., could not find any favour with
the petitioner. Accordingly, the application was
rejected.

¶45

7.Now, considering the nature of the
redressal forum, it is purely inbuilt mechanism
provided under the guidelines of IOC Ltd. This
forum cannot be equated either with quasi judicial
authority or appellate authority so as to impress
upon this Court to say that grant of opportunity of
hearing is must and necessary. If this is
acceptable position, we are unable to acept the

¶46

4144.18wp (7)

¶47

submission of Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing

¶48

for the petitioner that there is a breach of
principle of natural justice as no opportunity of
hearing is granted to the petitioner.

¶49

8. If mechanism forum guided by the

¶50

guidelines undertaken exercise as per modalities of
either assessment of record or physical
verification of either side, no fault can be found
with this exercise merely on the ground raised by
the petitioner that there is a breach of principle
of natural justice. Thus, the first limb of
submission of Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner is meritless.

¶51

9.The second ground raised by the petitioner

¶52

that there is certain variance in respect of land
on the backdrop of partition deed. Now, this
submission leads asking this Court to entertain a
petition on the disputed question of facts, whether
partition deed was effected between the parties,
when it was effected, what was the effect of the

¶53

4144.18wp (8)

¶54

partition deed, whether land referred to in
partition need is actual location which is referred
to in the sketch drawn by a authority in the
personal verification.

¶55

10.All these are disputed question of facts

¶56

and by no stretch of imagination, this Court can go
into all these disputed facts in a petition filed

¶57

by the petitioner merely challenging the
communication issued by the IOC Ltd., without there

¶58

being any right created in favour of the
petitioner or any mandate of law so that the
petitioner can seek issuance of a writ by
exercising extraordinary powers of this Court.

¶59

11.Though Mr. Patil, learned Counsel

¶60

appearing for the petitioner submitted that reasons
are not assigned in the communication impugned in
the petition on the material placed before us by
the IOC Ltd., in the form of affidavit in reply and
the documents annexed to it, we are also unable to
accept this submission of Mr. Patil.

¶61

4144.18wp

¶62

(9)

¶63

12.Considering all the above referred facts,
we are of the opinion that the petition is devoid
of merits and deserves to be dismissed and

¶64

accordingly the same is dismissed.

¶65

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGEJUDGE

¶66

Tupe

Ahmed Mohib Syed v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahmed Mohib Syed v. the 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

Vilas Vishwanath Ugale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr Jalaluddin Moinuddin Ahmed and Others Vs Jawahar Medical Foundation Dhule through Its Chairman and Others

Vaishali Walmikrao Bagul Vs Prerna Trust Aurangabad through Its Secretary and Others

Ashok Nivruti Jaybhaye Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vikram Shrirang Jawale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manish Dharsibhai Parmar Vs the Additional Commissioner of Income TAX-RANGE-2, Aurangabad