142wp2546.10.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2546 of 2010 (Smt. Santoshi Jagdish Agrawal .vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Coram: D. D. Sinha and A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 14/02/2011. Heard Mr.Harnish Gadhiya, Adv. holding for Mr.A.M.Ghare, Adv. for the petitioner and Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. for the respondent. This petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 18th September, 2009 issued by the respondent/Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of LPG distributorship, Telhara area came to be rejected on the following grounds, which read thus : “1. You had, vide your application at Item No.14.3, mentioned an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs in ICICI Bank with FDR No.852964 dated 17.10.07. This FDR cannot be considered for giving marks as the same is taken after the date of advertisement i.e. 06.09.07. 142wp2546.10.odt 2 . 2) SBI-FDR No.471921 for 40,000/- in your name is dated 23.10.2007, which is taken after the date of advertisement (6.9.07) & hence does not qualify for marks. 3) The loan value realizable against LIC document No.8226599 as on date of advertisement is Rs.42061/- whereas the amount mentioned in the application is Rs.48026/-. Thus excess amounts mentioned by you Rs.5965/- in your application cannot be considered for giving marks. 4) LIC Policy Document Nos. 823250683 and 823250724 for Rs.10,000/- each taken in the name of two sons on 13.08.07 are against no loan entitlement, as the policies taken are after the date of advertisement and hence no loan value on date of advertisement can be realized. “ Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner submitted application/proposal for grant of LPG distributorship in view of the Advertisement (dt. 6.9.2007) issued by the Petroleum Company on 3.10.2007, which was within the stipulated period. It is further submitted that, the Petroleum Company, on 10.10.2007, 142wp2546.10.odt 3 . issued a corrigendum and the last date of submission of fresh application pursuant to the said Corrigendum was 12.11.2007 and the petitioner has submitted his application on 24.10.2007. It is contended that, the Selection Committee, in the process of selection, has given the petitioner highest marks and therefore, the petitioner was eligible to get the LPG distributorship. It is contended that the reason given by the Petroleum Company in the impugned communication is based on the clauses of initial advertisement dt. 6.9.2007 and therefore, the action of Petroleum Company is unsustainable in law. Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. for the Petroleum Company has submitted that, so far as the Corrigendum dt. 10.10.2007 is concerned, it only modifies clause No.14.2 of the Original advertisement dt. 6.9.2007 keeping the other clauses of the said advertisement as it is. It is further contended that clause 14.3 of the Original advertisement has nothing to do with the Corrigendum, which requires the candidate to submit the information about fixed deposit of himself, his wife and his dependent children existed on the date of advertisement i.e. 6.9.2007. It is further contended that the petitioner gave the information in this regard about the fixed 142wp2546.10.odt 4 . deposit of a later date i.e. after the date of advertisement (dt.6.9.2007). Counsel for the Petroleum Company has submitted that, it is not in dispute that the petitioner secured highest marks in the selection process; however, as per the procedure, the Field Verification Committee is required to scrutinize the documents and information submitted by the selected candidates and the Field Verification Committee, while scrutinizing the case of the petitioner, noticed that the information given by the petitioner was not in conformity with clause 14.3 of the original advertisement dt. 6.9.2007 and therefore, the marks of the petitioner were reduced. After reduction of marks, the petitioner's ranking has gone down and he no longer was the highest scorer and therefore, the person who had secured more marks than the petitioner was eligible to get distributorship and not the petitioner. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel. In view of the above referred undisputed facts, it is evident that though the petitioner received highest marks in the selection process; however, the Field Verification Committee, on the basis of clause 14.3 of the advertisement dt. 6.9.2007, found that the information given 142wp2546.10.odt 5 . by the petitioner in respect of fixed deposits of himself and his family members were created after the date of advertisement i.e. 6.9.2007, though the requirement was to give information in this regard as existed on 6.9.2007 i.e. the date of advertisement. It is in this situation that the action taken by the Petroleum Company, in our view, is sustainable in law. Perusal of the Corrigendum dt. 10.10.2007 clearly shows that it does not modify the advertisement dt. 6.9.2007, whereas it only modifies the clause 14.2 keeping the other clauses of the Original advertisement dt. 6.9.2007 as it is. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais