1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4371 OF 2009 Smt. Bhagyashree Sandip Soni Age: 33 Yrs., occu: Self employed, R/o Madan, Soni Kunj, Main Road, Chakur, Tq. Chakur, Dist.Latur. - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., H-1, M.I.D.C., Chikalthana Industrial Area, Aurangabad, through Regional Manager. 2) The Senior Regional Manager, H-1, M.I.D.C., Chikalthana Industrial Area, Aurangabad, - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Advocate h/for Mr.RL Kute, Adv. for Petitioner; Mrs.Anjali Dube, Advocate for Resp.Nos.1 & 2. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 18th November, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER: K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.) 1) Rule returnable forthwith. By consent the matter is finally heard. 2 2) Apropos to advertisement for appointment of LPG Distributor, the petitioner applied for such opportunity by filing in the requisite details and annexing the documents. Petitioner asserts, he has maintained requisite credit balance in the account at the time of making application dated 6th October, 2007. It was, unfortunate fate for the petitioner that due to ill-health of close relations, she withdrew Rs. 18 lacs (Rupees eighteen lakhs) from her Bank account, which indeed was pressed for the above reasons. 3) After scrutiny, the petitioner was declared at Serial No.1 in the Select List. The Sales Officer of Respondent Corporation, as per procedure carried field inspection, the unauthorized withdrawal of amount before stipulated time limit was noticed, which was apparently violation of tender condition No.19(g) and clauses 16 and 17 of the application. The 3 Respondent/Corporation, by communication dated 6th June, 2009, rejected candidature of petitioner and hence this writ petition under Article 14 and 226 of Constitution of India. 4) We have heard both the sides extensively and also perused the advertisement and notice issued by the Respondent/Corporation. The conditions in the advertisement mandate intending enterprenuer to adhere to the terms therein, which also cast an obligation not to furnish any information or make any statement, which is false or which is incorrect and if it is so noticed, without assigning any reason, the Corporation shall reject such candidature. Even if dealership is allotted, it will also result in termination. 5) Since it was an obligation cast on the petitioner in terms of eligibility criterion, it was expected of the petitioner to maintain minimum credit balance in the Bank account for the stipulated period. Untimely and 4 unauthorized withdrawal for any valid reason naturally is contrary and in breach of the terms. The action of the Respondent/Corporation is without any malice and activated owing to the breaches committed by the petitioner. That apart, the statute does not impose a legal duty on the authority to accept the petitioner’s application of dealership as it was laced with irregularities. It was obvious, there was a reason in maintaining such direction to visualize economical viability of the petitioner and we find substance in the submission of the counsel for the Corporation when she says there is no authority in the Corporation to rectify the breach of terms of conditions, if it is noticed. 6) In the result, the petition lacks merit, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp4371.09 fldr.20.11.09