WP 758/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.758/2011 Abdul Gaffar Abdul Hamid V/s The Union of India & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri V.D. Hon, Advocate h/f Shri S.G. Magre, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent nos.1 to 4. Shri Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.6. Shri A.A. Nimbalkar, Advocate h/f Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent no.5. CORAM: D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. Date: 15.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondent nos.2 & 3 to decide his objection dated 28.10.2010 against allotment of retail outlet dealership of Indian oil to respondent no.5. We have perused the application dated 28.10.2010. In this application, the petitioner has raised two WP 758/11 2 objections. One is in respect of high tension wire being passing through the land, which is shown by respondent no.5 for running the outlet dealership; and secondly on the ground that the boundaries are not correctly described by the petitioner of the said plot. In support of the objections, Shri Hon, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Anita Sidram Koli V/s Union of India & others ( 2010 (5) Maharashtra Law Journal, 815). Insofar as the first objection is concerned, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 submitted that as per the guidelines for procurement of land for development of retail outlet, there should not be overhead high tension line of more than 11 KV passing through the site. In the present case, since it was 11 KV, that was considered by the committee and the decision was taken. So far as respondent no.5 is WP 758/11 3 concerned, he has filed reply affidavit stating that overhead high tension line has been shifted and as of today, no high tension line is passing through the site. Hence, the first objection, in our opinion, deserves to be rejected outright. Insofar as the second objection is concerned, it is clear that there is no dispute over the ownership and possession of the site. Insofar as the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention, in our opinion, has no application to the facts of the present case. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Civil Application No.5888/2011 is dismissed. (S.B. Deshmukh, J.) (D.B. Bhosale, J.) Dt/- 15.07.2011 ndk/c157116