1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4803 OF 2007 (Chiranjilal Jagdeo Bajaj vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 18, 2008 Heard Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondents. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that respondent no.1 issued advertisement dated 12.12.2006 inviting applications for allotment of retail outlet/Kisan Seva Kendra dealership. It is contended that Clause (2) of the said advertisement, which restricts allotment of dealership only to the persons, who are residents of the District, is bad in law since 2 respondent no.1 company is owned by the respondent no.3 and in accordance with Article 12 read with Article 301 of the Constitution of India restricting allotment of dealership only to the residents of the village/taluq/district is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. It is submitted that as per advertisement, candidates, who had applied for dealership, were required to submit various documents and one of them was residence certificate issued by the competent Authority. It is contended that though the petitioner did not submit the said document, however, other documents, which were submitted by the petitioner in respect of his property, etc. would show that the petitioner is a resident of the concerned village/taluq/district and, therefore, application of the petitioner could not have been rejected for non-submission of the said residence certificate. Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General has supported the impugned order dated 8.5.2007 whereby 3 application of the petitioner for retail outlet/Kisan Seva Kendra dealership came to be rejected for the reasons mentioned therein. We have considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties. So far as first argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, looking to the purpose and object for which advertisement was issued for allotment of retail outlet in a particular village/taluq/district, it is always expedient to have a person from the concerned village/taluq/district, who is well aware of the situation and other factors prevailing in the said area. It is well settled that rights, which are guaranteed under the Constitution can always be subjected to reasonable restrictions. If that is so, we see no reason why such reasonable restriction cannot be imposed in respect of allotment of dealership to a person, who is a resident of that village/taluq/district and, therefore, it is difficult for us to agree with the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that action of 4 the respondents is violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. So far as second argument of Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is well settled that candidate, who applies for allotment of dealership must comply with all the terms and conditions of the advertisement, failing which the Authorities undoubtedly will have a right to reject such application on the sole ground that candidate failed to submit necessary documents along with application, which are mentioned in the advertisement. Merely because the other documents, which are filed by the petitioner, may demonstrate that petitioner belongs to the said village/taluq/district, however, in the absence of certificate issued by the competent Authority about residence of the petitioner, it would be difficult to conclude as to whether petitioner in fact is a resident of that village as required under one of the conditions in the advertisement. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that petitioner failed to submit the said document. Consequently, action of the 5 respondents cannot be said to be bad in law. The petition suffers from lack of merit and hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj