- (1.) HEARD Sri Nitin Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Prakash Padia for the respondent -Corporation.
(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 14.6.2014 rejecting his representation that was decided pursuant to a direction issued by the High Court dated 20.5.2014 in Writ Petition No.28120 of 2014.
(3.) THE dispute relates to the award of a dealership for an L.P.G. distributorship and the godown thereof. The defect pointed out in the candidature of the petitioner is that the petitioner had offered plot no.138 Ka for the site of the godown that was not found to be motorable. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the said finding does not suffer from any infirmity.;