1 wp5463-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5463 OF 2010 Uttam s/o. Pandurang Bhosale ..Petitioner. V/s. The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. A.Y. Pandule for petitioner. Mr. Ajay S. Patil for respondent No.1. Mr. Minoo Siodia i/b. M/s. Rustamjee and Ginwala for respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 8TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C. :- 1. Heard Mr. Pandule, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved that his application for allotment of LPG cylinder distribution was not considered and he was disqualified on 19/06/2010. The respondent Oil Company had released an advertisement on 31st March, 2010 inviting applications from interested bidders for the distributorship of LPG cylinders in the rural areas. A corrigendum was published on 14th April, 2010. He submitted his application of 04/06/2010. He received a reply on 19/06/2010 that he was not a resident of the village where the distributorship was proposed 2 wp5463-10 for and he was not falling within the age limit prescribed. He submitted his representation on 28/06/2010 and it was replied to by the Senior Regional Manager, Pune LPG Regional Office of the respondent Oil Company. The relevant portion of the reply reads as under:- " With reference to our advertisement dated 31-03-2010 kindly refer to clause No.3(d) in this regard. We regret to inform you once again that your candidature has not been found to be eligible for RGGLV for the following reasons. 1. Your age is more than 45 years which does not meet eligibility criteria of Age for RGGLV 21 years. 2. You are not resident of advertised location Pimpode. You are resident of Shirambe." 2. In this petition, vide Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he prays for a writ of mandamus for deleting clauses 3(b) & (d) of the advertisement dated 31/03/2010 as being unconstitutional. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Oil Company has not yet allotted the subject distributorship and, therefore, he has challenged the validity of clauses 3(b) & 3(d) and the said challenge can be even decided as of now also. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent Oil Company has placed before us a copy of the order dated 22nd June, 2010 passed by this Court (Division Bench) in Writ Petition No.4759 of 2010 wherein a 3 wp5463-10 similar challenge to the clause regarding age was raised. This Court held that the challenge was misconceived and devoid of substance, looking to the nature of the job performed by the successful tenderer and, therefore, the condition of the respondent Oil Company was just and proper. We have considered the requirement prescribed in clauses 3(b) & 3(d) of the tender conditions. As per clause 3(d) the age limit prescribed was between 21 to 45 years. The petitioner is an ex- servicemen and he has crossed the age of 58 years. Even otherwise, we do not find any reason to hold that the condition of age prescribed is unreasonable, unfair or unwarranted. After all the Oil Company would appoint the successful bidders as its agent for distributorship of LPG cylinders in rural areas and it was a business contract. The Company would also be justified in insisting that the proposed bidder should be resident of the place where the distributorship was to be made available and such condition also makes sense. We, therefore, agree with the view taken in the earlier petition and we are satisfied that the challenge raised in this petition to the above mentioned two clauses i.e. age and residence is devoid of merits. 4. The petition is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)