1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5557 OF 2010 Sanjaydada S/o Dadagangaram Bhujbal .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Union of India and others. .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri S.B.Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Phatake,Std.Counsel.for Respondent no.1. Shri Alok Sharma,A.S.G for the respondent no.2 Shri S.T.Shelke,Adv.for R.3. .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 6 th OCTOBER, 2010. ORAL ORDER : 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the selection of respondent no.3 for grant of retail petrol outlet. 2 2] Shri S.B.Talekar, learned counsel petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 selection committee with a malafide intention for favouring the respondent no.3 at the behest of her uncle who enjoys a very good rapot with officials of the Corporation, since he himself is holding dealership,has selected respondent no.3, though she is not qualified. 3] Shri Talekar, learned counsel submits that though the petitioner is having a land owned by his father and though the affidavit of the petitioner’s father was placed on record, stating therein that he was willing to give the land to the petitioner, no marks are given to the petitioner, whereas, in case of respondent no.3, marks have been given though the land in case of respondent no.3, is owned by respondent no.3’s father. It is submitted that this has been done with a malafide intention. It is submitted that forged documents of the respondent no.3 regarding her income tax returns have been 3 taken into consideration by the committee. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a B.A. failed candidate, whereas, the respondent no.3 is only holding Diploma in Engineering and is studying B.E. at Sangamner. It is therefore, submitted that the petitioner stands at much higher side so far as educational qualification is concerned and he ought to have been given higher marks. 4] In so far as contention of the petitioner that the land owned by father should have been taken into consideration and the marks given in that respect is concerned, the same is without substance. Family unit has been defined in paragraph 6 of the brochure, which reads thus : “6] APPLICABILITY OF MULTIPLE DEALSHIP NORM [RELATIONSHIP CLAUSE] In a given ‘family unit’, consisting of a father, mother and unmarried brother(s) 4 / unmarried sister(s), if the applicant is unmarried OR In a given ‘family unit’, consisting of spouse, unmarried son(s) / unmarried daughter(s), if the applicant is married – as the case may be. None of these individuals would be entitled to a new dealership / distributorship of any Oil Company if any other individual in this ‘family unit’ already holds a dealership / distributorship or Letter of Intent (LOI) for dealership / distributorship of any Oil Company.” 5] Clause 13.1.1 provides that the marks to be granted either to the candidate who has his own land or a land in the name of a member who is a part of family. Clause 14-A clearly states that for considering land to be owned by member of family unit, the definition of family unit will be as per para 6 above. Clause B of para 14 provides that if a person offers the land of any other person, who is other than the one belonging to family, in such a case, applicant should submit registered 5 agreement with the land owner. 6] The question for consideration is as to whether the petitioner’s father can be considered to be a member of his family. For finding out the same, the we will be only permitted to consider definition of family as defined in para 6, in as much as, para 14-B also clearly states that for considering as to whether land belongs to family unit or not, definition as defined in para 6 will have to be considered. Para 6 which is reproduced hereinabove provides the definition of family – if the applicant is unmarried, then family unit shall consist of father, mother and unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters. However, in the case of married person, the family unit shall consist of spouse, unmarried sons and unmarried daughters. The petitioner atleast does not dispute that he is married person. In that view of the matter, as per definition Clause, his family unit includes his spouse, unmarried sons and unmarried daughters whereas is in case of respondent no.3, 6 who is not married, the father would be entitled to be considered as a member of a family unit. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father may have to be considered as member of his family unit is therefore, without substance. 7] The next question is as to whether the document submitted by father of the petitioner would answer the requirement of the brochure. Conjoint reading of Clauses 15-17 read with Clause 14(a) would clearly reveal that if a land is not owned by applicant or a member of family unit, then the applicant will have to offer the land of which he has a firm offer. Clause (b) of para 14 clearly states that in case of offer to be termed as a firm offer, the applicant must submit registered agreement with the land owner. Undisputedly, the petitioner has not produced the registered agreement with the father-landowner. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the decision of selection committee, is not 7 considering the land of the petitioner’s father, as the land of a family unit and also not considering the same to be a firm offer. 8] The next question as to whether contention of the petitioner that the respondent no.3 is shown favour by respondent no.2 at the behest of the uncle of the respondent no.3 who is said to be having a dealership, holds much water. It is a settled principle of law that if allegations of malafide are made, it is a duty of the petitioner to implead all such persons against whom the allegations of malafides are made. Not only that, but a Petition is also required to give details as to what action of such respondents would amount to a malafide. In the present case, neither the authorities nor any of the officers of respondent no.2 have been impleaded as party respondents nor any allegations of malafides have been detailed in the petition. In that view of the matter, it would not be permissible for us even to refer to such wild allegations 8 which are cursorily made in the memo of the petition and sought to be advanced in the oral arguments. Judicial review of administrative action would permit us only to examine as to whether the decision making authority has acted arbitrarily, irrationally or illegally. We are therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case to establish that the decision making authority has acted either arbitrarily, irrationally or illegally. 8] In that view of the matter, Petition is devoid of any substance, hence the same is dismissed. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp5557-10