1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4757 OF 2009 Vijaysing s/o Sobaji Gavit .. Petitioner Versus The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Petrolium, New Delhi and others .. Respondents Shri K.C.Sant, Advocate for petitioner Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd July 2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner takes exception to the empanelment of respondent No.4 pursuant to an advertisement dated 31.7.2007. The petitioner also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus by directing respondents to allot Retial Outlet Dealership to the petitioner at Visarwadi, Taluka Nawapur, District Nandurbar pursuant to advertisement dated 31.7.2007 and to give him letter of intent. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus. 2 In 2003, an advertisement had been issued in which the allotment of the petrol pump at Visarwadi was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Despite the issuance of advertisement, no eligible person came to be selected. Thereafter, an advertisement came to be issued on 31.7.2007 reserving the allotment of retail outlet petrol pump dealership for open category candidates. The petitioner and respondent No.4 and others had submitted their applications. The respondent No.4 came to be selected and the petitioner, therefore, took exception to the selection of the respondent No.4. It appears that the petitioner had submitted certain complaints objecting to the selection of respondent No.4 on the ground that the husband of the respondent No.4 is being prosecuted for offences punishable under the Essential Commodities Act. The respondents by their communication dated 21.7.2008 informed the petitioner that the complaint of the petitioner has been treated as closed. 3. Shri K.C.Sant, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that since the husband of the respondent No.4 is a habitual offender who has been prosecuted for offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act, the respondent No.4 rendered ineligible. It is also submitted that in the earlier advertisement issued in the year 2003, the aforesaid allotment of the petrol pump was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. However, since no eligible person came to be selected, an advertisement came to be issued in the year 2007 and the allotment of the dealership of the said petrol pump was reserved for open category 3 candidates which is per se illegal. It is also submitted that the respondents while informing the petitioner by their communication dated 21.7.2007 that his complaint has been filed, ought to have given reasons i.e. a speaking order ought to have been issued which is the mandate of the provisions which are the guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers. 4. We have heard Shri K.C.Sant, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of respondent No.1. According to us the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner are only misconceived. As per the guidelines which are issued, a candidate who is convicted or against whom charges have been framed by a Court of law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude/economic offence (other than freedom struggle) is ineligible or disqualified. Therefore, the prosecution of the husband of the respondent No.4 for offence punishable under the Essential Commodities Act would not render respondent No.4 as ineligible or disqualified. In the light of that, therefore, we do not see any merit in the aforesaid contention. Turning to the contention of the petitioner that a reasoned order was not passed though it is the requirement of the guidelines, according to us no prejudice can be said to have been caused. In any event, the objection of the petitioner was to the selection of the respondent No.4 on the ground that her husband was prosecuted does not amount to disqualifying the petitioner. In the light of that according to us, no 4 interference is called for merely because the respondents had not given reasons. In respect of the contention that in the advertisement issued in the year 2007, the aforesaid outlet dealership cannot have been reserved for open category candidates is also misconceived. In the advertisement issued in the year 2003, the said site was reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate. Since no candidate was available, no appointment was made. In the year 2007, it was reserved for open category candidates. So long as the respondents have maintained the ratio of reservation in 2003 and in the year 2007 reserving the site for open category would not render either the advertisement or the selection of respondent No.4 void. In any event the petitioner had participated in the selection process and, therefore, cannot turn round and question the appointment. 5. We see no merit in the petition which is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) vvr/4757.09wp