srk 1 wp-250-11.sxw THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.250 OF 2011 Shri Dattatray Anantrao Kedari and another. ... Petitioners Versus Darshana Dattatray Ghule and others. ... Respondents Mr.S.A. Sawant for the petitioners. Mr. U.B. Nighot for respondent No.1. Mr. Sunil Gangan i/by M/s. RMG Law Associates for respondent No.5. Mr. A.I. Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent Nos.2 and 6. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Tuesday, February 08, 2011 P.C. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenged the appointment of respondent No.1 as LPG Gas Distributor on the ground that the certificate of residence granted by Tahasildar, Taluka Khed, District Pune was based on incorrect and misleading material. 2. In our order dated January 18, 2011, we recorded the statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the Collector, Pune will look into the petitioners' grievance. 3. To enable the Collector to hear the petitioners and respondent No. 1, we also directed them to appear before the Collector and accordingly, the matter has been decided by the Collector, Pune. 4. The learned AGP has placed on record the order dated 3rd February, 2011 of the Collector, Pune to the effect that the certificate dated 12th March, 2010 issued by the Tahasildar, Khed in favour of respondent No.1 srk 2 wp-250-11.sxw Darshana Dattatray Ghule about her residence at village Wada, Taluka Khed is cancelled. 5. The aforesaid decision is placed on record alongwith the affidavit dated 7th February, 2011 of the Tahasildar, Khed. 6. In view of the above development, we direct the Indian Oil Corporation to take fresh decision in the matter after taking into consideration the aforesaid decision dated 3rd February, 2011 of the Collector, Pune. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that notwithstanding the Collector's decision, the Indian Oil Corporation should not disturb the distributorship issued in favour of respondent No.1. It is also contended in the alternative that the Collector's decision is not correct. 8. Without expressing any opinion on any such contention, we make it clear that it would be open to respondent No.1 to challenge the said decision dated 3rd February, 2011 of the Collector, Pune before an appropriate forum but the fact remains that the previous decision of the Indian Oil Corporation awarding LPG Gas Distributorship to respondent No.1 on the basis of the certificate dated 12th March, 2010 of the Tahasildar, Khed, cannot stand. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.