1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3605 OF 1994 The Parbhani Zilla Apang Kalyan Va Punarwasan Sahkari Sanstha Ltd., Parbhani, Asha Bhawan, Jintoor Colony, Sailu, District Parbhani, through its Secretary Shri. Kashinath Haribhau Chavan, Age: Major, Occ: & R/o. As above. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., ( A Govt. of undertaking ), 2nd Floor, "Kailash", 26, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division), Ganesh Wandan, 226, Hill Road, Shivaji Nagar, Near Ramnagar Chowk, Nagpur 440 010. 3. The Secretary, Oil Selection Board, Maharashtra/Goa/Daman & Diu, Maker Towers, 12th Floor, 'E' Wing, Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005. 4. Jugalkishor s/o Ramkishan Devidhan, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Paithan, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad. 2 5. Subhash s/o Bhawarlal Kala, Age: Major, Occ: Business, R/o. Opp. Maharashtra Bhawan, Main Road, Sailu, Tq. Sailu, District Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS ... Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate holding for Shri. Vijay Gangapurwala, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Bhushan Kathar, Advocate holding for Shri. P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 26TH AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. It is contended that the petitioner is a registered co-operative society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The society is formed by the physically handicapped persons. The aims and objects of the society are mentioned in Para-2 of the petition. On 06-11-1985 the Indian Oil Corporation published an advertisement in the 3 local newspaper calling the applications from the deserving candidates for appointment of distributorship of Indane Gas of Indian Oil Corporation at Sailu in Parbhani District. It is further contended that the petitioner had applied for the same. For some reasons, no steps were taken by the Indian Oil Corporation. Consequent to the advertisement issued in the year 1985, on 17-08-1993 the Indian Oil Corporation issued one more advertisement for grant of L.P.G. distributorship at Sailu in Parbhani District, State of Maharashtra. A copy of the said advertisement is shown to us today. Clause-9 of the said advertisement states that since interviews could not be held pursuant to the earlier advertisement on 16-11-1985, candidates who had responded to the earlier advertisement would also be considered alongwith the applicants who would apply pursuant to the advertisement issued on 17-08-1993. It is the contention that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had also applied against the advertisement issued in the year 1985. 4 2. The petitioner's contention is that respondent No.5 with the petitioner alongwith others were interviewed and respondent No. 5 was ultimately selected by the Indian Oil Corporation to be its distributor at Sailu. This action of the Corporation is under challenge. By an order dated 20-01-1995 this Court had admitted Writ Petition but refused interim relief. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation submits that respondent No. 5 was allotted distributorship and accordingly, he has been running the said distributorship since then. The Counsel further submits that the petitioner was not entitled to apply still the petitioner was interviewed but on merits, the petitioner was not selected. There is no illegality or violation of essential conditions of the advertisement and allotment of distributorship. Therefore, it was urged that the petition is without any merits and be dismissed. 5 4. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 supported the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation and in addition to the same, submitted that in the facts of the case, and in view of the pronouncement of view taken by the High Court in Chinmoy Sarkar and etc., vs. Md. Shaniat Hossain and etc., (A.I.R. 1990 Calcutta 412) and Vishnupuri Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Ltd., Khattali, vs. Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi and others (A.I.R. 1986 Allahabad 211), the Writ Court need not interfere into the matter, as the petitioner failed to establish that selection process was vitiated by an arbitrary or irrational exercise of power. The Counsel submitted that in affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.5, it has been categorically stated that he was handicapped having Polio Radical Paralysis. The Counsel showed us certificate to that effect. We have perused the same. The 6 Counsel submits that respondent No. 5 has been running distributorship consequent to allotment and in the light of the same, the position need not be reversed in view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to make out any ground for the same. 5. We have perused the judgments cited supra and advertisements issued in the year 1985 and 1993. We find that the Corporation had clearly mentioned in advertisement issued in 1993 that the applicants who had applied against the advertisement issued on 10-11-1985 would also be considered for the selection process. Respondent No. 5 being one of the applicant, finally he was selected and distributorship was allotted. In principle, the Writ Court would interfere in the matters of selection of dealership of this nature, if the selection is vitiated by an arbitrary or irrational exercise of power, grounds of mala- fides based on no materials or made on the basis of irrelevant materials or by ignoring relevant 7 factors which are necessary for the applicant to be selected by the Company. 6. In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioner was not competent even to apply as Company had called for applications from the physically handicapped persons. The argument advanced by Smt. M.A. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is society formed by handicapped persons and therefore, entitled to apply is not sustainable and acceptable submissions. On plain reading of the advertisement and its conditions, we find that the petitioner was not entitled to apply but the fact remains that the Company accepted the application of the petitioner and even representative of the petitioner was interviewed. 7. For the reasons stated above, we do not find that selection process is vitiated so as to exercise Writ Jurisdiction. The Writ Petition is without merits. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 8 Rule discharged. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/AUG10/wp3605.94