Bombay High Court
Nitish Ravindra Patil vs The Union Of India Through Secretary And ... on 20 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:1565-DB
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 2044 Of 2024
Nitish s/o Ravindra Patil,
Age : 26 years, Occupation-Unemployed Post Graduate,
R/o. Near Bidar Naka, Vijay Colony,
Udgir-413517, Tq. Udgir,
Dist. Latur. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Through Secretary, GOI,
Ministry of Petrochemicals,
New Delhi - 110001.
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation,
Government of India Understanding,
Through Retail Territory Manager,
Solapur Retail Territory, POL Depot,
Near Pakani Railway Station, Pakani Post,
North Solapur, Solapur-413255. .. Respondents
*****
* Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar Advocate for the Petitioner.
* Ms. Nikita Gore, Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1/UOI
* Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Respondent No.2
*****
CORAM : S.G. MEHARE AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ..
RESERVED ON : 15th JANUARY 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th JANUARY 2025
[1]
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
J U D G M E N T (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides
finally at the admission stage.
2. The Petitioner who is aspirant of retail outlet dealership, has
challenged the letter dated 01.02.2024, declaring him to be ineligible
for not uploading consent of all co-owners within stipulated period.
3. Petitioner applied for the outlet dealership in pursuance of
advertisement issued by the Respondent No.2/Corporation. He
claimed to be a joint owner of Survey No.33 situated at Nalgir, Taluka
Udgir, District Latur. He was ready to offer the land which was of the
joint ownership for the petrol pump. Respondent No.2/Corporation
issued guidelines through Brochure for selection of dealers. In
compliance of the same, except one co-owner, others had given
consent. Despite that, just because one of the co-owners failed to give
consent, the Petitioner was declared to be ineligible.
4. Learned Counsel Mr. Godhamgaonkar submits that Respondent
No.2/Corporation adopted hyper technical approach. The guidelines
are not mandatory in nature. Conjoint reading of Clause 4(vi) and (g)
would show that consent of few co-owners would suffice the purport.
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
He would submit that liberal interpretation of the Clause needs to be
drawn. It is further submitted that frontage of 50 meters is the
requirement. Considering the total area of the land and number of co-
owners, more than sufficient area of land would fall to the share of
the Petitioner. There are other immovable properties for allotting
shares to co-owners. Lastly it is submitted that no prejudice would be
caused if Petitioner is allotted dealership.
5. Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 Mr. Anand
Bhandari adverts our attention to provision of 4, 6(m) and 23(k) of the
Brochure to buttress the submission that consent of all co-owners is
mandatory. He would submit that there are six co-owners and all were
not consenting for offering a land for the retail outlet. Petitioner was
granted time vide letter dated 25.01.2024 to remove the defect. He
failed to rectify the defect within 21 days, and hence, he is rightly
disqualified. He would further submit that the share of the Petitioner
is not identifiable as there was no partition amongst the family
members. The undivided family of the Petitioner is likely to create
hindrance in smooth functioning of business in future. Hence the
Petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties.
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
7. The Petitioner's claim is discarded by the Respondent
No.2/Corporation for not submitting consent of all co-owners. Land
Gut No.333 is owned by six family members of the Petitioner which is
undivided. Admittedly one of the co-owners did not support the
Petitioner for his venture of outlet dealership of petrol. It reveals
from record that on 25.01.2024, the Petitioner was notified defect and
extended opportunity to submit the document within stipulated time.
The Petitioner was unable to submit the consent of all the co-owners.
8. The Petitioner is falling in category Group-I as per Clause 4(vi). It
is relevant to reproduce Clause (g) of the Brochure :
"g) The land owned by the family member(s) will also be considered as
belonging to the applicant (Group-1) subject to producing the consent letter in
the form of affidavit (Appendix-III) from the concerned family member(s). Such
consent letter in the form of affidavit should have been tendered by the
concerned family member(s) on or before the data of application. "
9. It is imperative to produce consent letter in the form of affidavit
from the members of the family which is reflected in Clause (m). The
eligibility criteria provided as per the Brochure would indicate that
consent of all the family members having interest in the land shall be
produced. It is not open for this Court to draw any liberal
interpretation. Neither there is any discretion left with the
Corporation to relax the condition or to adopt liberal approach. The
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
consequences of not removing the defects are provided by Clause
23(k) which is as follows :
"23. List of Non-Rectifiable Deficiencies in Applications :
The following deficiencies in the application form for Retail Outlet Dealer
Selection are non-rectifiable and such applications will not be considered for
further selection process.
a)........
b)...........
............
k) Rectifiable deficiency not corrected within the specified time (21 days). "
10. The conjoint reading of relevant clauses of the Brochure would
lead to conclusion that consent of all the co-owners is mandatory. Its
non-compliance would lead to ineligibility. Despite extending
opportunity, the Petitioner failed to rectify the defect within
stipulated period. The Respondent No.2/Corporation is justified in
declaring the Petitioner as 'ineligible' by the impugned
communication.
11. It is apparent that land Gut No.333 is joint and there are six co-
owners. The share which is likely to be allotted to the Petitioner is
unidentified. There is nothing wrong on the part of Respondent
No.2/Corporation to ensure that the business should run smoothly
and without any hindrance. The specific conditions are incorporated in
the Brochure so as to avoid hardship and complications in future. We
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
are, therefore, of the considered view that the interpretation of the
relevant clause suitable to the Petitioner, is not possible. The frontage
of 50 meter is expected of the land offered for the dealership, but
there is no provision to grant any leverage to the Petitioner.
12. We do not notice that there is any perversity or patent illegality
in disqualifying the Petitioner from the selection process. The decision
taken by the Respondent No.2/Corporation is in consonance with the
provisions of the Brochure. It is not appropriate to cause indulgence in
the process undertaken by the Corporation. The petition sans merit.
Hence it is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
13. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel for
the petitioner prays for continuation of the interim relief, which
was granted by this Court on 21.02.2024. Learned counsel Mr.
A.P.Nahar holding for Mr. Anand Bhandari for respondent No. 2
opposes the request.
934.WP-2044-2024.odt
14. As the interim relief is operating till final disposal of the
matter, we find it fit to continue the same for further period of
four (04) weeks.
15. Interim relief which was already operating shall be
continued for four (4) weeks and it shall stand vacated
automatically.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ S.G. MEHARE ]
JUDGE JUDGE
najeeb..
