13. wp 2248­11.doc RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2248 OF 2011 Salim Khadirsaheb Tahsildar .. Petitioner Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Anr .. Respondents Mr. Amit Borkar for the Petitioner Mr. Minoo Siodia a/w Mr. Nikhil Agarwal & Mr. Kaushik N. Singh i/b Rustamji & Ginwala for Respondent No. 1 Mrs. Jyoti Pawar for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of allotment of retail outlet by the Oil Company in favour of respondent no. 2 as well as order dated 30th December 2010 passed by the Grievance Committee of respondent no. 1. It is submitted that the petitioner has raised following two objections in respect of the action of allotment of the Oil Company in favour of respondent no. 2 before the Committee: i. Marks are not properly awarded as per guidelines 1 13. wp 2248­11.doc pertaining to fixed and movable assets. ii. During the investigation, the Complainant submitted copy of another letter dated 21st October 2010 alleging that the first empaneled candidate i.e respondent no. 2 is not the resident of Halkarni and not from Kolhapur District and is the resident of Mumbai and therefore, certificate of Tehsildar annexed in this regard by respondent no. 2 along with his application is not a genuine document. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that both these observations were overruled by the Redressal Committee. It relied on the report of the Investigating Officer and the complaint / objection raised by the petitioner came to be rejected. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the Tehsildar who has issued the certificate showing respondent no. 2 as resident of Halkarni, Dist. Kolhapur, has no authority / jurisdiction to issue such certificate and therefore, at this stage, seeks permission to withdraw the present Writ Petition with liberty to take appropriate steps for questioning validity of the said certificate issued by the Tehsildar. It is submitted that if the petitioner gets the declaration from the Competent Authority i.e the certificate issued by the Tehsildar in favour of 2 13. wp 2248­11.doc respondent no. 2 cannot be sustained in law since the Tehsildar did not have jurisdiction to issue the said certificate, liberty be given to the petitioner to file representation to respondent no. 1 in view of such changed circumstances for necessary action. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is the stand of the Oil Company that as per the conditions of advertisement, it was not necessary that the persons should be resident of District Kolhapur where the outlet was required to be installed, even then respondent no. 2 will be guilty of submitting wrong information about his residence and in such situation, it will be open for the Oil Company to take appropriate action against the said respondent. 5. In the backdrop of the above referred facts without expressing any view on the merits of the Writ Petition, we dispose of the petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ] 3 13. wp 2248­11.doc 4