Sunita Surjerao Wakade vs The Union Of India And Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 10079 Bom

                                                                      8069.20wp
                                   (1)

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     27 WRIT PETITION NO.8069 OF 2020


 Sunita w/o Surjerao Wakade,
 Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
 R/o. B-202, Vaibhavshali Co-operative
 Housing Society, Sector No. 11, Plot No. 5,
 Kharghar, Tq. Panvel,
 Dist. Raigad                                          ...PETITIONER

         VERSUS

 1.      Union of India,
         Through its Secretary,
         Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
         New Delhi

 2.      The State of Maharashtra,
         Through its Secretary,
         Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas,
         Mumbai-32

 3.      The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
         Through its Manager,
         Maker Tower Cuffe Pared, Post Box No.19949,
         Mumbai-400 005

 4.      The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
         Through Regional Head,
         Near Pakni Railway Station, Pakni Post,
         North Solapur, Solapur - 413255               ...RESPONDENTS

                                   ...
 Mr D. A. Mane, Advocate h/f Mr P. A. Bharat, Advocate for petitioner;
 Mr A. N. Patale, Standing Counsel for respondent No.1;
 Mr S. B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.2;
 Mr S. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4


::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2021                   ::: Downloaded on - 24/09/2021 18:06:31 :::
                                                                     8069.20wp
                                   (2)


                               CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                              AND
                                       S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 2nd August, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clause (B), which reads as

under :

"B] This Writ Petition may kindly be allowed and impugned communication dated 27.08.2019 issued by the Respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., may kindly be quashed and set aside and the Respondents Authorities may kindly be directed to award RO Dealership at Raimoha, Tq. Shirur-Kasar, Dist. Beed under SC category pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.11.2018 in favour of the petitioner"

3. Since the impugned order is dated 27/08/2019 and as the

petition was filed on 23/01/2020, no interim relief has been granted to

the petitioner.

8069.20wp

4. The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste category

and is SSC (10th standard) holder, applied for Retail Outlet Dealership

(for short 'R. O. Dealership') at Raimoha, Tq. Shirur-Kasar, Dist.

Beed in view of the advertisement issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4,

dated 25/11/2018 in "Dainik Lokmat". By an e-mail communication

dated 18/06/2019, respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Bharat Petroleum

Corporation Ltd.) declared that the petitioner was selected on the basis

of a draw of lots. She was informed that this was only a preliminary

intimation towards her selection for R. O. Dealership and the award of

the Dealership would be subject to compliance of the terms and

conditions made applicable by the BPCL. By a communication dated

27/08/2019, which is impugned in this petition, the petitioner was

informed after the Land Evaluation Committee evaluated the land

offered by her, by visiting the site on 26/08/2019 and it was found that

the land was not suitable since "the offered land is situated on SH

59".

5. The grievance of the petitioner is, that after going through the

advertisement, she had offered the concerned site. As she was not

conversant with English language, she could not read or understand

8069.20wp

the brochure for selection of Dealership for Regular and Rural Retail

Outlets, published on 24/11/2018. She was not aware that the land to

be offered for the Rural site at issue, should be a location in the rural

area and not on any State or National Highway or any Highway of

such nature outside the Municipal limits of the town. As she was not

able to read the English version of the brochure, she offered her land

which was on State Highway 59. Had this aspect been mentioned in

the advertisement or the documents available on the website of the

BPCL for the purposes of appointing Retail Outlet Dealership in the

regular and rural areas, she would have realized that the land that she

had offered, was not suitable for the said location. She had another

land which she could have offered for the said purpose. As there is a

deficiency in the advertisement, notwithstanding the policy decision

of the BPCL, this Court should direct the BPCL to accept the land

location/site offered by the petitioner and allot a Retail Outlet

Dealership.

6. The learned Advocate representing the BPCL has taken us

through the brochure published for selection of dealership. He

submits that the BPCL cannot be faulted if they have published the

8069.20wp

brochure in English language. If the petitioner was unable to read the

English brochure, she should have taken the assistance of any person

who was conversant with English language. On this count, the BPCL

cannot be faulted.

7. He further submitted that there are instances when certain lands

situated on State Highways or National Highways were not found

suitable. The BPCL had issued a notice concerning appointment of

regular/rural R.O. Dealership, wherein such exclusion of lands was

mentioned. It is conceded that due to oversight, that such exclusion

was not mentioned regarding the Raimoha rural area in Taluka

Shirur-Kasar, Dist. Beed, which was a location on which a petrol

pump dealership was necessary. It was not mentioned at Sr. No.276 in

the said notice that said Highway or National Highway land was not

acceptable. Nevertheless, it has been specifically mentioned in the

brochure at internal page No.31 that locations in rural areas would be

preferred for rural R. O. Dealership and such locations on national

Highways or State Highways, etc., outside the Municipal limits of the

town, were not acceptable.

8069.20wp

8. It is then pointed out that before approaching the High Court,

the petitioner had filed a civil case bearing R.C.S. No.860 of 2019

before the District Court by way of a suit and exparte ad interim

injunction was granted by the Trial Court. Subsequently, the

petitioner withdrew the said case from the learned Civil Court. It is

further pointed out that the suit was withdrawn after the filing of this

petition in the same cause.

9. It requires no debate that if the petitioner is unable to follow

English language, her lack of understanding cannot be attributed to the

BPCL. So also, merely because the BPCL had not mentioned in one

of it's notices indicating exclusion of lands on the National Highways

or State Highways, would also not further the cause of the petitioner

since it was specifically mentioned in the brochure which was

available on the website that sites for the rural areas would not be

preferred on the National Highways or State Highways. The conduct

of the petitioner in filing a civil suit before the learned Trial Court and

after obtaining injunction, filing a writ petition in this Court, is not

appreciable.

8069.20wp

10. Though it is mentioned in the memo of the petition that R.C.S.

No.860/2019 is pending before the learned Trial Court, the filing of

this petition in the face of a pending suit in the same cause, cannot be

tolerated. Subsequent withdrawal of the suit will not further the cause

of the petitioner.

11. Taking into account all the above factors and as this petition is

devoid of merits, the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

 (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                       (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)



 sjk