1 wp2042.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2042 OF 2010 Mrs. Pramodini Puthlabhai Rajendra Deshmukh ...Petitioner. Vs. Vasanti Anil Dhamal & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2053 OF 2010 Sangeeta Shivaji Deshmukh ..Petitioner. Vs. Vasanti Anil Dhamal & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2054 OF 2010 Mrs. Manisha D. Deshmukh .. Petitioner V/s. Vasanti Anil Dhamal & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Girish Paryani for the petitioner in all petitions. Mr. M.N. Dhamal for the Respondent No.1 in all petitions. 2 wp2042.10.sxw Mr. N.M. Sakhardande with Mr. S.R. Page for Respondent Nos.2 to 5 in W.P. No.2042/10 and W.P. No.2053/10 and for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in W.P. No.2054/10. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard Mr. Apte, the learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Girish Paryani for the petitioners. All the 3 petitions raise a common challenge viz the selection of respondent No.1 Mrs. Vasanti Anil Dhamal as the Distributor of LPG Gas outlet at village Shirwal in Satara District. Hence, the petitions are being decided by common order. 2. On 6-9-2007 the respondent No.2 released a proclamation inviting applications for the said distributorship and it was published in some of the local newspapers. The present petitioner as well as respondent No.1 were some of the applicants. The eligibility criteria and the details of selection process were set out in the broucher published by respondent No.1 in June, 2007. On 11-7-2009, 34 candidates were called for interview to be conducted by Selection Committee and 25 of them appeared before the 3 wp2042.10.sxw Selection Committee. Out of the remaining candidates, one was held to be disqualified on account of not producing the original documents, one was held ineligible and remaining 7 were absent. The Selection Committee consisting of 3 members - all officers of respondent No.1, conducted the interviews and displayed the merit list on the very same day and in the said merit list the first three candidates in merit were, (1) Mrs. Vasanti Anil Dhamal (Respondent No.1) (2) Mrs.Manisha D. Deshmukh ( Petitioner in Writ petition No.2054/2010) and (3) Mrs. Pramila Patel (she has not filed any petition.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No.2042 of 2010 Mrs. Pramodini Deshmukh was at serial No.7 and Mrs. Sangeeta Deshmukh was at serial No.17 in the said merit list dated 11-7-2009. It appears that on publication of the merit list, the petitioners lodged a complaint with the Oil Company on 3-8-2009 and pointed out the alleged illegalities in the merit list. The said complaint was decided and the reply was communicated on 5-10-2009 by the Territory Manager of respondent No.1. On 23-10-2009 the respondent No.1 has issued the letter of intent, on 8-12-2009 the agreement was signed between the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 and consequent thereto the distributorship was put in operation. 3. Mr. Apte, the learned Sr. Counsel has invited our attention to clause No.8.1 from the broucher and submitted that on the plot where the distributorship has been commenced by respondent No.1, there is a high 4 wp2042.10.sxw tension overhead electric wire running across the plot and this is not permissible under the said clause He referred to the representation dated 3-8-2009 setting out specifically the same ground amongst others and submitted that the reply given on 5-10-2009 denying any such high tension wire running across the plot was factually incorrect and the Oil Company was suppressing its own mistakes while selecting respondent No.1. Mr. Apte also submitted that while allotting the marks for the assets of the candidates, different marks have been allotted for the same assets and the representation submitted by the petitioners have been decided by the officer, who was one of the members of the Selection Committee. 4. The Oil Company has filed an affidavit in reply denying the allegations made against the selection process as well as about the suitability of the plot on which respondent No.1 has already set up the distributorship. The certificate issued by the Jt. Chief Controller of Explosives and the Jr. Engineer of MSEDC Ltd. at Shirwal have also been annexed to the reply and as per the said certificate there is no overhead line running across the godown of respondent No.1. 5. So far as the panel for selection is concerned, we have perused the broucher and it does not contemplate the selection committee members to be outsiders. Mr. Apte fairly conceded that the officer of respondent No.2 5 wp2042.10.sxw could be the selection committee members. So far as the reply given by one of the selection committee members to the complaint filed on 3-8-2009 is concerned, we do not find any illegality in the same and therefore, the said ground raised in support of the challenge does not impress us. Mr. Apte also pointed out that while the complaints filed by the petitioners were pending, the respondent No.2 Oil Company ought not to have issued the letter of intent dated 23-10-2009 in favour of respondent No.1 and in this regard he invited our attention to clause No.21 of the broucher. We have noted that the complaint dated 3-8-2009 has been decided by the Oil Company on 5-10-2009 and it was clearly stated therein that the complaint regarding suitability of the land was not admissible. It was further clarified that in case, the complainant had any further complaint on the same issue, she was free to submit the same with proof thereof within 30 days. The petitioners submitted another complaint on 26-10-2009 and we have perused the same and we do not find any further material in respect of the allegations that a high tension wire is running across the godown plot. We therefore, do not find any force in the contentions that the letter of intent dated 23-10-2009 has been issued while the petitioners' complaint was pending with the Oil Company. 6 Mr. Apte has invited our attention to the photographs annexed to the petition memo and if the photographs are viewed, it would be clear that 6 wp2042.10.sxw the high tension wires which are seen therein are not running over the godown plot of respondent No.1. As per the broucher the minimum plot size required is 27m X 26.15m and the godown plot size of respondent No.1 is 32 m X 29 m. The certificate issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Jt. Engineer MSEDC Ltd. specifically states that there is no overhead electric wire running across the godown and show room of respondent No.1. Mr Apte has invited our attention to the letter dated 14-8-2010 issued by the Section Officer MSEDC Ltd. Shirwal and we have perused the same. The said letter reads as under: "1) With reference to the above mentioned subject it is to inform you that property bearing Survey No. / Gat No. 321 A & G.M.No. 3201 of Chopala Shirwal, Tal. Khandala, Dist. Satara is owned and possessed by Shri Anil Kondiba Dhaml R/at Shirwal, Tal Khandala, Dist. Satara. 2) High Tension electric lines of 22000 volt & L.T. electric lines of 440 volt are passing over the said plot from Chopala to Pandharpur Phata in South-North direction for the past 10 years." It is pertinent to note that the inquiry vide letter dated 4-8-2010 was in regard to the entire plot i.e. Plot survey No./Gut No. 321 A and G.M. 3201, and it was not a specific query in respect of the plot admeasuring 32 X 29 meters on which the godown and show room of respondent No.1 has been put up. We are informed by the learned Counsel for the Oil Company that the land being G.M. No. 3201 admeasures about 32 acres and 7 wp2042.10.sxw therefore, the reliance on the certificate dated 14-8-2010 is misleading and misplaced. 7. So far as the the merit list is concerned, the Selection Committee has interviewed all the candidates, allotted marks for each head, as is clear from the same document which is on record and we cannot sit in judgment over the allocation of marks unless there is any specific allegation of malice against any member of the Selection Committee. Even otherwise only the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2054 of 2010 could in our considered opinion, raise challenge to the selection of respondent No.1 because she is at serial No.2 in the merit list. Whereas, the other two petitioners do not have even a remote chance of being considered for issuance of LPG. Distributorship in place of Respondent No.1, in view of the placement in the merit list. Even otherwise we have examined all the grounds raised by Mr. Apte and we do not find any error committed by the Oil Company in selecting respondent No.1 as the distributor. The allegations that the subject plot where the godown and show room is located is not suitable or clause 8.1 of the broucher has been breached are not supported from the record and when the respective departments have given clearance holding that an electric over head wire is not passing across the godown plot, We find no reason to find fault with the decision of the company, in selecting Respondent No.1 as the distributor for village Shirwal. 8 wp2042.10.sxw 9. Hence these petitions must fail at the threshold and they are hereby rejected summarily. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.)