IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 608 OF 2008 SHRI. GABRIEL FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Government Advocate for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. S. Dessai, Advocate for Respondent no.3. Mr. Shashank Nagvenkar, Advocate for Respondent no.4. Mr. Marwin D' Souza, Advocate for Respondent no.5. Mr. Jos P. D' Souza, Advocate for Respondent no.10. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 28th November, 2008 ORAL ORDER The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against the Respondent no.2, the Director of Tourism Department, to grant a licence to the Petitioner for erection of a Shack at Morjim beach for the tourist season 2008-09. 2. The Government formulated a policy for allotment of the Shacks. Under the said policy, the applicants are divided into groups. The first group is of applicants having experience of ten years and above, the second group is of applicants having experience of six to nine years, the third group is of applicants having experience of one to five years and the last group is of inexperienced applicants. Clause (a), which finds place after Clause 14 of the policy provides that 90% of the Shacks shall be allotted to the applicants by giving weightage on the basis of past experience of operating the Shacks. Thus, the first three categories are of applicants having experience with regard to the specific number of years. 90% of the Shacks as noted hereinabove are to go to the persons having regard to their placement in the preference group and 10% is available for inexperienced or new applicants. In regard to the beach in question, eight shacks were to be allotted. Thus, seven shacks would go by preference to experienced applicants and one would go to the category of inexperienced applicant. There was one applicant having experience of ten years and hence he came to be alloted a Shack. In the scrutiny made by the Respondent, there was only one person in the second category of experience for more than six years to nine years and thus he was granted the next Shack. Thus, after exhausting category one and two of the preference and after allotting one shack to the fourth category of inexperienced applicant, five Shack remained to be alloted. There were seventeen applicants in the third category who had to compete for five Shacks and thus a decision was reached to allot the same by draw of lots, which is so stipulated under Clause 14 of the Policy. The Petitioner has not been alloted any Shack and hence the present Petition has been filed. 3. In the first place, it is contended by the Petitioner that he has an experience of eight years, however, he had stated in the application that he has an experience of seven years. Perusal of the application of the Petitioner reveals that a scrutiny of the application was made and it was noted that the Petitioner had submitted documents to substantiate experience for a period of only five years. It is the case of the Respondents that the scrutiny Officer after carrying out the scrutiny, noticed the fact that five years of experience stands substantiated by producing documents by the Petitioner and hence the declaration of seven years experience was changed to five years by the petitioner himself. The correction carried out in the application bears the signature of the Petitioner, though the Petitioner has denied his signature. The Petitioner has tried to contend that he falls in the second category of applicants having experience of six to nine years and thus was entitled to be allotted a shack. An affidavit in reply has been filed by the Officer, who scrutinized the applications, including the application of the Petitioner by name Subhash K. Kavlekar, who holds the post of Information Assistant in the Department of Tourism. In Paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by him, it is categorically stated that he himself physically carried out the scrutiny and he noticed that the Petitioner had submitted documents with regard to the past experience only for a period of five years. In the presence of the officer the petitioner made corrections in the application and put his signature. 4. There is no reason to disbelieve the concerned Officer. There are no allegations of malafide against him. Thus, the corrections carried out in the application need to be taken at their face value and if that be so, the Petitioner does not fall in the second category but would fall in the third category of having experience of one to five years and thus had to compete with other sixteen persons for allotment of five Shacks. In the drawal of lots, the Petitioner was not lucky enough to get a Shack. There is no merit in the Petition and the same thus deserves to be dismissed. Even otherwise, the disputed question of fact as to whether the corrections made in the application are by the Petitioner or as claimed by him have been made by someone else cannot be gone into in a writ petition. 5. As there is no merit in the Petition, the same stands dismissed. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. arp/*