Mr Bipinchandra K. Patil, Advocate for v. Hange, A.G.P. for
Legal Reasoning
1177.25wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1177 OF 2025Abhijeet s/o Bandu Housalmal,Age: 34 years, Occupation – BusinessAt Gandhi Nagar, Near Jadhavar Hospital,Kallamb, Dist. Osmanabad - 413 507 ….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra,Through the District Collector,Beed, Tal and District Beed2.Executive Engineer,Public Works Division,Beed, Tal and District Beed3.Sub-Divisional Engineer,Public Works Sub-Division,Parali-Vaijnath,Tal. and District Beed4.Assistant Engineer,National Highways Sub-Division No.4,Beed, Tal and District Beed5.Head of the Territory Office,T. M. Retail, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,At Post – Akolner,Taluka and District – Ahmednagar ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Bipinchandra K. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for respondents/StateMr Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.5 1177.25wp(2) CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 27th February, 2025JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally by consent of the parties.2.The petitioner takes exception to communication dated06/03/2024, issued by respondent No.5/Bharat Petroleum CorporationLtd. disqualifying him for allotment of Retail Outlet dealership fromGroup-1 and directing him to be considered from Group-3 as per theguidelines.3.The facts in nutshell leading to filing the instant petitionare stated below :-(a)Respondent No.5 floated advertisement on28/06/2023 for allotment of Retail Outlet (R.O.) dealership atvarious locations. (b) In response to the advertisement, the petitionerapplied for the location ‘from Pangri to Tokwadi on NH-361-FShirsala-Parali Road, District Beed, State of Maharashtra.’ 1177.25wp(3) (c)On 16/12/2023, the petitioner was informed that hewas qualified for draw of lots to be held on 27/12/2023.(d)On 27/12/2023, respondent No.5 issuedcommunication informing the petitioner that, based on draw oflots, he has been declared as provisionally selected. It wasspecifically mentioned that this was only a preliminaryintimation of provisional selection and the award of dealershipwas subject to compliance of terms and conditions of theCorporation. (e)On 13/02/2024, the Land Evaluation Committee(LEC) of respondent No.5 visited the petitioner’s location andafter evaluation, prepared a report, in presence of the petitioner.(f)The Territory Manager of respondent No.5informed the petitioner by a letter dated 06/03/2024 that, on thebasis of report of Land Evaluation Committee, he was foundineligible as the Committee found existence of an intersection ofvillage road to Kauthali Tanda at 100 meters on opposite side ofoffered plot and hence, the land was not found suitable. 1177.25wp(4) (g)The petitioner was therefore informed bycommunication dated 06/03/2024 that he was not eligible fromGroup-1, however, his candidature would be considered fromGroup-3 as per the guidelines.4.Feeling aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.5,declaring the petitioner disqualified from Group-1, the petitioner hasfiled the instant petition. 5.Learned advocate Mr B. K. Patil for the petitioner hasvehemently argued that the decision of respondent No.5 is arbitraryand illegal being violative of principles of natural justice. He hassubmitted that there is no evidence to demonstrate that there is anyintersection within 300 meters of the location and the report of theLand Evaluation Committee is factually incorrect. He has averred inthe petition that he was not served with report of the Land EvaluationCommittee and the impugned decision, being one sided, is violative ofprinciples of natural justice. Further, he has relied upon a letter dated10/05/2024, issued by the Assistant Engineer of National Highway,Sub-Division 4, Beed, which was issued to the petitioner informingthereby that there is no proposed major/minor junction on the NationalHighway 361F at the location offered by the petitioner. The petitioner
Legal Reasoning
1177.25wp(5) has, thus, assailed the decision of respondent No.5 and prayed for adeclaration of eligibility for allotment of Letter of Intent.6.Learned advocate Mr Anand Bhandari for respondentNo.5 strongly opposed the petition. On the basis of stand ofrespondent No.5 as pleaded in reply dated 21/01/2025, he justified theimpugned decision. He submitted that, in view of clause 14(I) of thebrochure for selection, respondent No.5 has rightly taken a decisionbased on report of Land Evaluation Committee. In respect of hissubmission, he relied upon a decision in identical fact situationrendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.5810/2019 (RatnamalaShrikrishna Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) by judgmentdated 10/06/2019.7.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.8.The allotment of Retail Outlet dealership has to be inaccordance with terms and conditions of the brochure for selection.Clause 14(I) of the brochure categorically provided for conditionsrelated to ‘Land Evaluation’. This clause specifically lays down theparameters for deciding suitability of land being based on evaluation 1177.25wp(6) by Land Evaluation Committee and it provides that the land must meetNHAI norms. It is specifically stated that land not meeting any of theparameters as stated in the clause will not be considered and will berejected.9.Perusal of the report of the Land Evaluation Committee,dated 13/02/2024 shows that the inspection of land was conducted on13/02/2024 in presence of the petitioner, who endorsed the report byhis signature. It has to be noted that the award of dealership wasdependent upon compliance of terms and conditions of the brochurefor selection. The decision about suitability of land has to be on thebasis of report of the Land Evaluation Committee. In the instant case,the Land Evaluation Committee of respondent No.5 has specificallyobserved that ‘there is intersection of village road to Kauthali Tandaat 100 Mtrs on opposite side of offered plot gut no. 321. The offeredland is on undivided road NH361F. Hence offered land is not foundsuitable as it is not meeting NHAI norms’. It is pertinent to note thatthe report was prepared by the committee with due notice and inpresence of the petitioner, who even put his signature below it.10.In view of this report, respondent No.5 has taken finaldecision to disqualify the petitioner from Group-1. Respondent
Decision
1177.25wp(7) No.5/Corporation is the best person to decide suitability of a particularland for award of dealership. An individual offering his land cannotimpose his decision and insist for a declaration of his eligibility. Thepreliminary selection of the petitioner did not confer any right to getfinal allotment since the same was clearly dependent upon furtherterms and conditions. The decision of respondents is based on thereport of the Land Evaluation Committee, which has conducted theinspection in the presence of the petitioner. No mala fides have evenbeen attributed to respondent No.5/Corporation. The averments andgrounds raised by the petitioner, alleging violation of rules of naturaljustice are, therefore, devoid of substance. 11.We find no illegality or arbitrariness in the decision ofrespondent No.5/Corporation. The petitioner has failed to make outany case warranting indulgence under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. The petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed and the same isaccordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk