1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 4627 OF 2010 (Smt. Firoze Farhat Parveen Su. Ubed Ali .vs. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2011. Heard Mr.Firdos Mirza, Adv. with Mr.Yusuf Bombaywala, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.Kalmegh, Adv. with Mr.N.W.Sambre, Adv. for respondent. In the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been given appropriate marks while evaluating her entitlement for grant of LPG Distributorship. Our attention has been invited to the brochure of selection and also to the facts disclosed in paragraph 40 therein. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also added that as this Court may not itself undertake the exercise of finding correctness or application of marks allotted as per the procedure for selection under clause 21, there is a Grievance Redressal 2 System for that purpose. Within one month of the interview, the petitioner submitted her grievance in writing and that the grievance is needed to be investigated after due opportunity being granted to the petitioner. He, therefore, states that, in the alternative, this Court may direct the respondent to hear the petitioner on her grievance and thereafter, proceed to pass appropriate orders. He points out that there was sole applicant and hence, till date, nobody has been selected and there is no question of anybody being affected because of such course of action. The learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the complaint received was examined by the Authorities and the marks allotted were found to be proper. He further states that, in the application, as filed by the petitioner, she has avoided to fill in the essential clauses and hence, she was not found eligible. He contends that minimum 40 % marks are required to be procured. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, we have perused the papers. Perusal of the application submitted by the applicant reveals that, while disclosing whether she has suitable land at or within within 15 kms from the advertised location for LPG godown, she 3 was supposed to strike off the option “not applicable”. But, she has not done so and therefore, the words “yes” and “no” both remained unselected against the said clause 13A1. As per clause 13B1, she was supposed to disclose whether she has got suitable land for construction of show room and there, instated of striking off the word “no”, she has tick marked the word “no”. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that when the respondents themselves required striking off the option “not applicable” and tick mark was put on the word “no”, it must be construed as 'striking off' sign and not as 'tick mark' indicating selection. We are afraid that such an argument cannot be accepted. By putting a tick mark on the work “no”, the petitioner has indirectly accepted that she has no land available for construction of show room. In any case, the grievance made by the petitioner has been looked into by the respondent and the marks allotted are found to be proper. We are also satisfied that there is no abuse of power or mala-fides in the process. It is also clear that as nobody has been allotted LPG distributorship, as and when new advertisement is published, the petitioner is eligible to apply for it. We, therefore, dispose of 4 the petition with the above observations. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE jais