Sandip Gorakh Naik vs The Union Of India Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8388 Bom

                                          1               934wp8594.21 judgment



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         934 WRIT PETITION NO.8594 OF 2021


Sandeep Goakh Naik,
Age; 25 years, Occ; Nil,
R/o; At Post Sudarde,
Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.                                        ...PETITIONER

              VERSUS

1.         The Union of India
           Through the Secretary,
           Ministry of Petroleum and Natural
           Gas. Shastri Bhaven,
           New Delhi - 110 001.

2.         Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
           Manmad Installation, Manmad,
           Nandrgaon Road, Panewadi,
           Manmad 423 104.
           Through its Regional Manager.               ...RESPONDENTS

                                  ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Jain Rakesh N. and Mr.Salgar Suresh P.
  Advocate for Respondent No. 1 : Mr.R.R.Bangar and Mr. Munde
                              Suresh W.
      Advocate for Respondent No. 2 : Mr.Bhandari Anand P.
                                  ...

                                   CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                           SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

                                   DATE       : 25.08.2022.



ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER - MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)


.                   Rule.





                                     2               934wp8594.21 judgment

2. Rule is made returnable forth with. With the consent of

the learned Advocates of the respective parties, heard finally at the

stage of admission.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his candidature

by respondent No. 2 for allotment of Petrol Pump from Group 'III'

category, on the ground of absence of suitable land at the advertised

location.

4. Admittedly, the advertise contained the site location as

'Sundade village on the State Highway No. 6'. Though the petitioner

while submitting application indicated that he possessed some land,

conspicuously he categorically mentioned its location as 'Sundade

road, Nandurbar'.

5. On our query with the learned Advocate for the petitioner

as to if the petitioner possesses any land at the advertised location at

Sundade village, the learned Advocate, on instructions, answers in

the negative.

6. If it is a matter of allotment of Retail Outlet for a specific

advertised location, the person who is able to offer the land either of

the Group 1,2 or 3, alone would be entitled to be considered. There is

3 934wp8594.21 judgment

no question of consideration of petitioner's candidature. If he

admittedly does not possess any land conforming to the advertised

location. We find no illegality in the order. The Writ Petition is

dismissed.

7. Rule is discharged.

     ( SANDEEP V. MARNE )                 ( MANGESH S. PATIL )
           JUDGE                               JUDGE



mahajansb/