ATUL TANAJI PATIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Atul Tanaji Patil
Union of India And Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
NARESH H.PATIL,J -
(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.
(2.) The petitioner prays for following reliefs:-
(a) to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction in the like nature and to direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to cancel the selection of the proposed firm of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for grant of 'Retail Dealership' made on the basis of the advertisement dated 14/9/2011;
(b) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the like nature and to direct the Respondent 3/17 wp913.15.sxw No.3 to follow new procedure of selection of the 'Retail Dealers' by adopting the method of 'Draw of Lots' mentioned in the Letter dated 23/6/2014 by which guidelines were issued to the Respondent No.3. ( c) to issue a Writ of Mandamum or any other Writ, order or direction in the like nature and to direct the Respondent No.3 not to approve 'Letter of Intent' in favour of the proposed partnership firm of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and if already approved, to direct the Respondent No.3 to cancel the same;
(d) to stop further proceedings on the basis of the selection of the proposed partnership firm of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 during the pendency of this Petition;
(3.) The Marketing Division of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) published advertisement on 14th September, 2011 in the newspaper for appointment of retail outlet (petrol pump) Dealers within 3 km. from the Borpadle Phata on the left hand side of the Kolhapur-Ratnagiri Road. Pursuant to said advertisement petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form on 14th October, 2011. It is contended that three 4/17 wp913.15.sxw applicants including the petitioner applied for the said dealership. The interview of the petitioner and other two applicants was scheduled on 27 th December, 2012 at Vasco-Goa in the office of respondent no.4. One of the applicants namely Shri Anantsagar Vilas Medshinge was declared as disqualified. The petitioner secured 84 marks and respondents 5 and 6 (Partners) were awarded 85.75 marks in the interview. The petitioner alleges that the marks allotted to the partnership firm formed by respondents 5 and 6 was against the prescribed norms and the rules mentioned in the Brochure of the respondents. It is alleged that respondents awarded zero marks to the petitioner under the heading 'Ready availability of finance'. He submitted that while considering proposal of respondent firm, the company considered it liberally, however, while allotting marks to petitioner very rigid and mechanical approach was adopted.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.