1 wp1150.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1150 OF 2011 Machhindra s/o Tukaram Pagire, Age: 52 years, Occ: Government Contractor, R/o. Plot No.20, Bhagyodaya Housing Society, Baug Road, Savedi, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Union of India, Through the Secretary, in the Department of Petroleum, New Delhi & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. Mahesh R. Sonawane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. S.D. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5. ... CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 26TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT : By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection process undertaken by 2 wp1150.11 respondent No.2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in the matter of giving dealership. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has not given proper marks in the result sheet. He has been given less marks by the Committee. It is submitted that under the head of financial capacity, out of 12, he was given 0 marks, which according to him, is not proper. 2. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, an affidavit in reply has been filed by Territory Manager (Retail). In Para-3 of reply it is stated as under : "3. I say that the petitioner has produced total six Fixed Deposit Receipts viz., Bank of Baroda and Urban Co-operative Bank, Ahmednagar. I say that the ready availability of finance with the petitioner was checked once again and it is observed that five Fixed Deposit Receipts out of six, Xerox copies of which are submitted by the petitioner, were in 3 wp1150.11 the name of Nodal Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and sixth was in the name of M/s. Manisha Construction which is also endorsed for securing Bank Guarantee. I say that if the application of the petitioner is taken into consideration which is annexed to the petition, at page 30, it is clear that the petitioner has applied in his individual capacity and not on behalf of firm and hence whatever rules and regulations applicable to the individual are applied and appropriate decision is given. I say that as there was charge on five Fixed Deposit Receipts out of six and apart from this, Fixed Deposits Receipts are in the name of Manisha Construction which has not applied for the dealership, the Committee has given 8 marks to the petitioner for ready availability of finance out of 20 and as the petitioner did not get any mark for liquid cash. Annexed hereto and marked Exhibit R-1 collectively are the copies of the Fixed Deposit Receipts given by the petitioner." 4 wp1150.11 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far Manisha Construction is concerned, the petitioner is sole proprietor and therefore, there is nothing wrong in giving bank guarantee in the name of Manisha Construction. It is required to be noted that other receipts are in the name of Nodal Executive Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Since the Fixed Deposit Receipts submitted by the petitioner are not as per the requirement of the respondents and since same are not in the name of the petitioner under the criteria of eligible financial capacity, if considering the aforesaid aspect, particular mark is given under the particular head, this Court cannot interfere with the same for asking the authority to increase the marks especially when the Committee after considering the record had given the marks under the different heads. 4. In our opinion, there is no substance in this petition. It is also required to be noted 5 wp1150.11 that in Para-6 of reply, it is pointed out that Fixed Deposit Receipts which are produced by the petitioner, are under the charge. We accordingly find no substance in this petition and same is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [ P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] sut/Apr11