1 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.7482/2009 Vrushali Ramesh Pawar ..Petitioner. vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. & ors. ..Respondents. Mr Milind Sathe,Sr.Counsel (with Shri S.M.Sabrad, Advocate) i/b Mrs Sunanda R. Kumbhat for the Petitioner. Mr S.R.Page, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mrs A.R.S.Baxi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 19TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the allotment of L.P.G., distributorship to Respondent No.5 by Respondent No.1. According to the petitioner, one of the conditions for being eligible to apply for distributorship 2 was the plot should be plain, in one continuous lot, free from over head power transmission or telephone lines . According to the petitioner, on the date on which Respondent No.5 applied for allotment of L.P.G.,distributorship there was a over head power transmission line passing over the land, where the godown was proposed to be constructed. According to the petitioner, a complaint was made by the petitioner in this regard to respondent no.1 pointing out that there is a over head power transmission line passing through the land where godown was proposed to be constructed. But the Corporation falsely claimed that there was no such line. According to the petitioner, therefore, the allotment of distributorship in favour of respondent No.5 is not valid, because she has made a false declaration in her application. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. We have perused the record. It appears from the record that there were two power transmission lines in the vicinity of the land where the godown was proposed to be constructed by Respondent No.5. One was dummy line which was never charged with power. The other was a stand-by line which was on the border of the land. When the application was made, the dummy line was actually running over the land where the godown was proposed 3 to be constructed. Respondent No.5 did not disclose that line in her application, because the line was never charged with power. 3. It appears that Respondent No.1 on making inquiry also found that though there were over head lines, they were never charged with power, and that Respondent No.5 is also taking steps to get those lines removed and, therefore, Respondent No.1 found application of Respondent No.5 in order. It is also a fact that before the dealership was allotted to Respondent No.5, even the dummy line has been removed by the Power Company and, therefore, presently there is no power line running over the land where the godown was proposed to be constructed. In our opinion, looking to the reason why the condition has been imposed and the fact that it was a dummy line which was running over the land where the godown was to be constructed in our opinion, no fault can be found with the actions of respondent No.1. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on a letter written by the H.P.C.L., which was also one of the Companies involved in issuing the advertisement that even a dead power transmission line disqualifies the applicant. In our opinion, that letter is not relevant. In 4 our opinion, in any case, as, we find that in fact the Corporation has allotted dealership after satisfying itself that the over head line, has been removed, it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere in its extra ordinary jurisdiction, specially when we find otherwise the respondent is duly qualified. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)