Bombay High Court
Shubham Sunil Pore vs The Union Of India And Ors on 6 May, 2024
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2024:BHC-AS:21545-DB
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2666 OF 2021
1. Shubham Sunil Pore
Age 26 yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o. A/p. Mhaswad, Tal. Man,
District Satara. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India
Through the Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural Gas,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
through its Divisional Office Head,
having its address at
Pune Divisional Office, 2nd Floor,
BSNL Telephone Exchange Building,
near GST office, Airport Road,
Yervade, Pune 411 006.
3. The Grievance Redressal Forum
through the Divisional Office Head,
having its address at
Pune Divisional Office, 2nd Floor,
BSNL Telephone Exchange Building,
near GST office, Airport Road,
Yervade, Pune 411 006. .. Respondents
---
Mr.Vishwanath S. Talkute for the petitioner.
Ms.Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for respondent no.1-State.
Mr.Sunil Gangan i/by RMG Law Associates for respondent nos.2 & 3.
----
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
Date : 6 th May 2024
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
Judgment (Per Jitendra Jain, J.) :-
. Rule. Ms.Priyanka B. Chavan, learned Assistant Government
Pleader waives service for respondent no.1-State and Mr.Gangan,
learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. By consent of the parties,
the petition is heard finally.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the communication dated 23 rd
June 2021 issued by respondent no.2 to the petitioner informing that
respondent no.2 has decided to drop the advertised location "On Satara-
Pandharpur Road (NH548C) within 5 km from Mhaswad bus stand
towards Pandharpur."
Briefs facts :-
3. Respondent no.2 had issued a notice for appointment of
Regular/Rural Retail Outlet (Petrol Pump) Dealerships. The applicants
were to make online application by 24 th December 2018. One of the
locations prescribed for the said dealership was in District Satara "On
Satara-Pandharpur Road (NH548C) within 5 km from Mhaswad bus
stand towards Pandharpur" and selection of the applicants were to be by
a draw of lots. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner, on 8 th
December 2018, made an application for dealership at aforesaid
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
location. On 14th June 2019, respondent no.2 informed the petitioner
that he has been selected as per draw of lots for petrol pump dealership.
Respondent no.2 also called upon the petitioner to submit various
documents. The petitioner complied with the said requisition. However,
on 1st September 2020, respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that on
a visit of the site, it was found that the same is not meeting the required
norms since land is not in advertised area. Therefore, the petitioner was
informed about his ineligibility. The petitioner, thereafter, approached
the Grievance Committee of respondent no.2 and the said Grievance
Committee on 23rd June 2021 informed the petitioner that they had
dropped the advertised location "On Satara-Pandharpur Road (NH548C)
within 5 km from Mhaswad bus stand towards Pandharpur." The reason
given for dropping was that 1.5 km from Mhaswad bus stand falls on
National Highway 548C but balance 3.5 km towards Pandharpur falls on
National Highway 548E and therefore, there being an ambiguity in the
advertisement, respondent no.2 decided to withdraw the said advertised
location. It is on this backdrop, the petitioner is before us.
4. The petitioner submits that there is no ambiguity in the
advertised location since the site is located towards Pandharpur within
5 km from Mhaswad bus stand. The petitioner further submitted that it
is unfair on the part of respondent no.2 to cancel the advertised location.
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
The petitioner submitted that on an identical fact situation, Aurangabad
Bench of this Court in the case of Manisha Atul Borse Vs. Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Anr. 1 has quashed a similar
communication and directed the respondents therein (HPCL) to consider
the eligibility of the petitioner therein. The petitioner, therefore,
submitted that since the facts of the present petition are similar, he
prayed for an identical order.
5. Per contra, the counsel for respondent no.2 informed that
they have decided to drop the advertised location on account of
ambiguity in the advertisement since a part of 5 km area towards
Pandharpur falls in NH548C and balance falls in 548E and the location
of the petitioner's site is in NH548E. The counsel further submitted that
no right accrues in favour of the petitioner to seek a direction against
respondent no.2 to enter into the contract since it was only by a draw of
lots that he came to be selected and there is no concluded contract.
Respondent no.2 further submitted that they have not opened the other
applications and therefore they do not know the status of other
applicants. Furthermore, respondent no.2 further submitted that on
account of ambiguity, there could be a situation where many people
may not have applied. In any case, as and when respondent no.2 will
1 Writ Petition No.7727 of 2018 decided on 13th February 2019
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
freshly advertise the said location, the petitioner is free to make an
application and same would be considered on its own merits.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
respondent no.2 and with their assistance have perused the documents
annexed to the petition and reply filed by respondent no.2 which were
brought to our notice in the course of hearing.
7. There is no dispute that the location advertised was "On
Satara-Pandharpur Road (NH548C) within 5 km from Mhaswad bus
stand towards Pandharpur." There is also no dispute that the total stretch
of 5 km towards Pandharpur from Mhaswad bus stand does not fall
within NH548C but a part of it i.e. 1.5 km falls within NH548C and
balance 3.5 km falls in NH548E. The site of the petitioner is on
NH548E. Admittedly, the petitioner's site is falling in NH548E towards
Pandharpur. The said site NH548E is not advertised by respondent no.2.
There is an ambiguity in the advertised posts. Therefore, it is to avoid
the ambiguity that respondent no.2 has decided to drop the advertised
location. On a perusal of the advertisement, there is no doubt that the
location of the site is of paramount importance and if there is any
ambiguity in the said location, certainly the parties cannot be said to be
ad idem and therefore, even if the petitioner has been selected albeit on
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
draw of lots and has complied with the documents required and
payment of fees, still it cannot be said to be a concluded contract
between the parties nor there could be any expectation on this count
since on realisation of the said ambiguity, respondent no.2 decided to
drop the advertised location. In our view, the action of respondent no.2
cannot be said to be arbitrary or unfair. Admittedly, there is no malafide
attributed to respondent no.2 by the petitioner.
8. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in case of
Manisha Atul Borse (supra) is based on the facts of that case. In that
case, there was no dispute with respect to the exact location namely,
Gondegaon. However, the error was with respect to the fact that in the
advertisement, instead of Gondegaon, Taluka Soygaon's location was
advertised as Gondegaon, Block Kannad. However, the village
"Gondegaon" was not in dispute and there was only one Gondegaon
village. It was on this fact that since the location was identified, the Co-
ordinate Bench directed the HPCL to consider the petitioner's application
and action to re-advertise was quashed. In the case before us, there is an
ambiguity in the advertised location inasmuch as the location in the
advertisement is NH548C within 5 km from Mhaswad bus stand but
from Mhaswad bus stand only 1.5 km was covered by NH548C and the
petitioner's site is located on NH548E which was not advertised.
ppn wp-2666.21(j).doc
Therefore, in our view, the decision of the Aurangabad Bench is
distinguishable on facts.
9. In view of above, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise
of Writ jurisdiction. It is open for the petitioner to participate in the fresh
advertisement.
10. The writ petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged. No
costs.
JITENDRA JAIN, J. A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
