WP No. 4346/11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4346 OF 2011 Sandip Gunajirao Tamkhane, Age 25 yrs., Occu. Education, R/o. Jaihindpura Galli, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, Through its Secretary, Department of Petroleum, New Delhi. 2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., through its Zonal Manager - Retail, 17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400 020. 3. The Selection Committee, through its Sub-Divisional Sales Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. G-39, Town Center, CIDCO, Aurangabad 431 003. 4. Dashrath Kisanrao Chaudhary, Age 45 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Khadakpura Galli, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. 5. Adv. Suryakant Palsaheb Chaudhary, Age : major, Occu. Legal Practioner, R/o. Khadakpura Galli, Gangakhed, Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. ....Respondents. Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, A.S.G. for respondent No. 1. Mrs. Anjali Dube, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent No. 4. WP No. 4346/11 2 Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 5. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 13th December, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner prays to quash and set aside selection list dated 25.10.2010 and order dated 8.4.2011 issued by the Senior Regional Manager, Retail of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. 3. The petitioner participated in the selection process of retail outlet dealership of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioner is admittedly at Sr. No. 3 in the list of empaneled candidates prepared by the Corporation. The petitioner filed objection petition addressed to Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation on 23rd November 2010. By communication dated 8.4.2011 the Senior Manager closed the complaint. 4. The petitioner raises two issues. Prominently the first is in relation to method of allotment of marks to the petitioner and WP No. 4346/11 3 respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner had submitted affidavit signed by father and uncle of the petitioner in respect of evidence of his fixed assets and income. The petitioner was allotted "0" marks by the Corporation under both the heads. The second issue in relation to the objection raised by the petitioner is that high tension electricity line is passing through the plot which the respondent No. 4 had earmarked for the purpose of dealership. It is the submission of the petitioner that in case more than 11 K.V. high tension wire is passing through the plot, the candidate would be disqualified even to participate in the selection process. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Senior Regional Manager of their Corporation dated 8.4.2011 is against the spirit of the judgment delivered by this Court reported in 2011 (4) ALL MR 208 [Sundardas s/o. Gajaran Nagwade vs. Union of India & Anr.]. The order passed, though titled as speaking order, is not in the strict sense the speaking order, touching the substantial issues raised by the petitioner, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. 6. In this petition notices were issued. Affidavit in replies are filed. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the WP No. 4346/11 4 petitioner has been given "0" marks as electricity line going through the plot is not more than 11 K.V. We find a certificate issued by the Junior Manager, M.S.E.D.C.Ltd., dated 12.10.2011 certifying that no electricity line goes through the land of respondent No. 4. 7. Perusal of the impugned order passed on 8.4.2011 shows that there is no reference made by the Officer concerned in respect of the affidavit filed by the father of the petitioner. The order lacks particular reference to 11 K.V. electricity line. 8. In the facts of the case and in view of the order passed, the issues raised by the petitioner before this Court require investigation into the questions of facts, which we are not inclined to address in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 9. Establishment of Grievance Redressal Committee of the Corporation shall be for a purpose to address issues raised by the parties on facts and answer them clearly by way of speaking/reasoned order. Perusal of the impugned order does not satisfy the objective for which the Committee was established by the Corporation. In several matters, it has been noticed that the WP No. 4346/11 5 Grievance Redressal Committee failed to pass reasoned order which is expected by such Committee. We expect the Corporation to issue necessary instructions in this regard to the Grievance Redressal Committee, so that litigation on this issue would be further curtailed. 10. In the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Grievance Redressal Committee for hearing the matter afresh. The impugned order dated 8.4.2011 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Grievance Redressal Committee. The Committee is directed to consider the entire record, hear necessary, affected parties and pass a reasoned order. Rule is made absolute in above terms. 11. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any final opinion in respect of the objections raised by the contesting parties. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/