(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4350 OF 1997 Mr. Asif Hussain Nathu Saiyad, Age : Major, Occupation : Business, R/o. Plot No. AA-15, Front of Laxmi Vinayak Colony, Near Godadipura, Baijipura, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Union of India. 2. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. Oil Selection Board for Maharashtra, Goa, Daman and Diu, Avian Hotel, Nehru Road, Vile-Parle, Mumbai - 400 057. 4. The Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai. 5. Dealer Selection Board, for State of Maharashtra, Goa and Diu Daman, Hotal Avoin, Bombay Airport, Nehru Road, Mumbai 400 057. (2) 6. Dealer Selection Board, Maharashtra & Goa, C/o. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., "B" Incelaration Sewree Fort Road, Sewree (East), Mumbai - 400 015. .. Respondents. 7. Justice Dr. Parmeshwar Dayal, A-585, Block A, Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.). 8. Mr. R.S. Nautiyal, 65-L, Rajpur Road, Dehradum (U.P.). 9. Mr. Naresh Pugalia, .. Respondent Gandhi Chowk, nos.7 to 9 Chandrapur (Maharashtra). deleted. ....................... Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate, holding for Mr. A.M. Kulkarni, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mrs. S.D. Tambat (Dhumal), Advocate, for respondent no.3. Smt. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), for respondent no.4. None for respondent nos.5 and 6. Respondent nos.7 to 9 deleted. ........................ (3) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the communication dated 3rd October 1996, addressed by the respondent nos.1 and 2, thereby cancelling the selection of the petitioner for kerosene dealership. 2. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner was selected for grant of kerosene dealership after his selection on merit. However, the selection came to be cancelled only on the ground that the selection committee did not finalize the list within 24 hours. 3. Since there is an interim order operating in the present petition right from 25-11-1998, we have requested the learned Counsel for respondent no.4 to find as to whether the petitioner is running his business properly or not. The learned Counsel for respondent no.4, on instructions, states that the petitioner is running business at Aurangabad and there are no complaints regarding his functioning. (4) 4. Since we find that the selection of the petitioner was made by the selection committee, in accordance with law and that the said selection was cancelled for no fault attributable to the petitioner and since on account of interim order, the petitioner has been running dealership for more than 12 years without there being any complaint, the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B" to the extent of the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4350