1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2547 OF 2008 Ganesh Marketing & ors. ...Petitioners v/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And ors. ...Respondents .. Mr.V.M.Thorat for the Petitioners. Mr.Naushad Engineer i/b RMG & Law Associates for the Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Mr.R.D.Soni for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 31th August, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner first challenges the cancellation of the list in which he was at serial No.1 for allotment of dealership. That list was cancelled by communication dated 25-4-2008. Copy of that communication was given admittedly to the Petitioner on 9th May, 2008, when Writ Petition (L) No.1258 of 2008 filed by the 2 Petitioner was before the Division Bench of this Court. The Petitioner had filed that petition claiming a direction to the Respondent to allot him the dealership because of his placement at serial No.1 in the list. The order dated 25th April, 2008 stated that the list has been cancelled because there were complaints received and that the Respondent has decided to hold reinterview on 13th May, 2008. The court by order dated 9th May, 2008 granted leave to the Petitioner to amend his Writ Petition. The Petitioner admittedly did not amend his writ petition immediately. He did not challenge the order dated 25th April, 2008 which contained the decision of cancellation of the list any time before 13th May, 2008. He appeared for reinterview. Admittedly, before appearing for the reinterview, the Petitioner did not inform the Respondent that he is 3 appearing for the reinterview under any protest. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated before us that in paragraph 18 of the Writ Petition the Petitioner has stated that he appeared for the reinterview without prejudice to his rights and contentions. But in the reply, the Respondents have categorically taken a stand that appearance of the Petitioner for reinterview on 13th May, 2008 disentitles him to challenge the cancellation of the list. There is no rejoinder filed. In our opinion, the conduct of the Petitioner of appearing for the reinterview , without amending his petition and placing cancellation under challenge, disentitles the Petitioner to challenge the cancellation. The Respondent No.3 was selected in place of the Petitioner and was allotted the dealership after the reinterview. The reason given by the 4 Respondent No.1 for not selecting the Petitioner is that the Petitioner No.3, who is a lady and who claims to have experience of the business, was merely a sleeping partner in the partnership firm Amit Marketing. In other words, the reason given by the Respondent No.1 for not allotting the dealership to the firm-the Petitioner No.1 is that the Petitioner No.3 who claims experience of doing the business did not actually carry on the business because though she was a partner of the firm Amit Marketing, she was not taking part in the business. This statement of fact made in the affidavit by the Respondent No.1, is not even denied by the Petitioner No.3. The Petitioners also have not filed any affidavit placing any document on record which will show that the Petitioner No.3 had actual experience of the business. In our opinion, in the absence of 5 any affidavit in rejoinder and placing any document on record, we have to accept the statement made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that the Petitioner No.3 was the sleeping partner in the partnership firm and therefore had no actual experience of carrying on the business. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that Interview Panel which conducted the reinterview did have officers from the other States than Maharashtra and that it is contrary to the policy guidelines. Assuming that it is so, the selection cannot be vitiated in the absence of any allegation of malice against any person who was the member of the Selection Committee. There is no allegation of malice against any member of the Selection 6 Committee and not a single member of the Selection committee has been joined as a party. The Respondent No.3 is a commercial organisation. In our opinion, the decision taken by such commercial organisation cannot be interfered with by the court unless the court finds that the decisions are contrary to any mandatory provisions of any law or they are vitiated by malice, either malice in fact or malice in law. The court cannot interfere with the decision of such commercial organisation in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under the Constitution of India merely because of some irregularities. Petition has no substance. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)