1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5297 OF 2009 Shriram s/o Dhondiram Musale PETITIONER. V E R S U S Union of India and another. RESPONDENTS. Shri D.R. Irale Patil Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma Asstt. Solicitor General for R-1. Mrs. Anjali Dube Advocate for R-2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND K. U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 8TH DECEMBER, 2009. PER COURT :- 1. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had applied against an advertisement for Petrol Pump Retail Outlet Ahmedpur, Nanded Road, Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Petitioner’s application was rejected by a communication made by the Senior Regional Manager – Retail, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 28.07.2009 on the ground that his application was 2 received after 16.00 Hours (04.00 PM) on 24.06.2009, whereas the same should have been received on or before 16.00 hours (04.00 p.m) on 24.06.2009 as mentioned in the Advertisement dated 17.05.2009 and corrigendum dated 26.05.2009. 2. The respondent No.2 filed affidavit-in-reply. In paragraph No. 6 – III ) deponent stated that “At 4.45 p.m i.e at 16-45 hours, petitioner and few others arrived at the office, the time for submitting the application was over and hence the same could not be accepted. As the petitioner and the said persons started arguing and creating unpleasant situation, their applications were accepted and acknowledgment was given. However, since the said applications were beyond the prescribed cut-off time, were not forwarded for scrutinization. Accordingly, this respondent by its letter No.AURR/PNS/RET/DT.28-07-2009, informed the petitioner that his application was rejected as the same was received late. Similarly other six persons whose application were also received late along with the petitioner, have also been informed by its letter dated even, that their applications were rejected being received late. Copies of the 3 said letters to all the said defaulter applicants are annexed herewith and marked at Exh.R-1 collectively.” 3. At the instance of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, original record regarding register of receipt of application was called. Executive Officer of R. E. and M.I of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manisha Dalal is present in Court. 4. We have perused the register and we find that against the entry of the petitioners name at S.No.151 it is recorded that application was received at 17.00 hours i.e. (05.00 PM). We have perused the receipt book, which is acknowledgment receipt bearing No.246. At S.No.247 and 248 two more applicants had filed their applications. Even their applications were also rejected on the identical ground on which petitioner’s application was rejected. 5. The contention of the petitioner that he had, in fact, filed his application prior to 04.00 p.m. therefor cannot be accepted as we do not find any justifiable, substantial ground to disbelieve the record produced by the company and the affidavit-in-reply filed by Senior Regional Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 4 Aurangabad. In the light of the discussion made above, petition lacks merit. Challenge raised to the order passed in communication dated 28.07.2009 fails. Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed. 6. We observe that the petroleum companies should devise more systematic method to avoid such instances in future. There has to be a mechanism of cross checking of such entries made by the concerned Clerk or officials. ( K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) aaa/5297.09 *****