1 review-194-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.194 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5032 OF 2010 Pritesh Jayprakash Chhajed ..Applicant Versus 1.Union of India through the Secretary ) Petroleum Department & Ors. )..Respondents Mr. Girish Kulkarni with Dr. R.K. Pandey i/b. Mr. S.R. Pandey for the Applicant. Mr. S.P. Kanuga, Advocate for respondent No.2 in Review Petition. Mr. Sunil Gangan with May Jayesh Mestry i/b. R.M.G. Law Associates for Respondent No.3. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 29th October, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the applicant, who prays for review of our order dated 29th September, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.5032 of 2010. 2. At the outset the learned Counsel appearing for the Oil Company 2 review-194-10 stated that S.L.P. bearing Diary No.33851 of 2010 has already been moved challenging our judgment dated 29th September, 2010. 4. The applicant claims that he is an aggrieved party by our judgment dated 29th September, 2010 in as much as he was one of the applicants for the very same location dealership licence (village Mahape, Thane Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai, District Thane). He further states that though he was not in the merit panel published on 24th December, 2008, the said merit list was recalled by the Oil Company and the applications of 22 candidates were found defective in the scrutiny allegedly undertaken during the pendency of the Writ Petition No.5032 of 2010 or the Writ Petition No.6977 of 2009 and in the very same process only the applications of 10 candidates were found complete in all respects. The applicant was one of those 10 applicants whose applications were found complete in all respects. He further states that pursuant to the letter dated 3rd June, 2010 addressed to him by Shri Bimal Pathak, Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, he appeared for the interview on 23rd June, 2010 at Mumbai and along with him there were 9 other applicants called for interview. He has placed on record the marks awarded by the Committee which purportedly conducted fresh interview on 23rd June, 2010 at Mumbai and as per the same the 3 review-194-10 applicant was the only candidate who remained present for the interview and the remaining candidates did not appear for the interview. Even in the said third or fourth round of interview he did not score 60% of the marks which was the bench mark for being selected as a dealer and, therefore, he submitted a complaint on 25th June, 2010, reminder on 20th August, 2010 and 12th October, 2010 and he claims that while the complaint was pending to be dealt with as per the guidelines he came to know of our judgment under review. 5. It is not in dispute that the applicant was not a candidate empanelled, in all the earlier rounds which were dealt with by us in our judgment under review. As of now he is not a party aggrieved by our judgment dated 29th September, 2010 in as much as even consequent to the fresh interviews purportedly held on 23rd June, 2010 he has not been selected for the dealership and only his complaint is pending. Therefore, the requirements akin to Section 114 read with Order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure are not satisfied. Thus on any count this review application is not maintainable and the applicant may have his remedy somewhere else. Hence the Review Application is rejected. ( U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)