1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5071 OF 2010 (Rajesh Bhimraj Pendam vs. The Chief Manager, 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 A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 31, 2011 Heard Shri Gulhane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Shri Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.3. The petition is directed against the action of the respondent no.1 whereby LPG Distributorship at Achalpur came to be allotted to respondent no.3. Shri Gulhane, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that advertisement dated 6/9/2007 issued by the respondent no.1 inviting applications for allotment of distributorship at various places 2 came to be published in the newspapers. It is submitted that issue involved in the present petition is in respect of allotment of LPG Distributorship at Achalpur, which was reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. It is contended that so far as respondent no.3 is concerned, he merely submitted decision of the State Government dated 8/9/1981, which is not permissible as per the advertisement and, therefore, allotment of LPG Distributorship in favour of respondent no.3 is bad in law. Shri Deshpande, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.3, states that the order dated 8/9/1981 is passed by the State Government whereby it is held that the petitioner belongs to “Mannervarlu” community (Scheduled Tribe). It submitted that the said order is an appellate order passed by the State Government, whereby respondent no.3 is declared to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. It is further submitted that the said order dated 8/9/1981 was produced by the respondent no.3 before the appropriate Authority. 3 We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties. It is no doubt true that allotment of LPG Distributorship at Achalpur was reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. However, it is difficult for us to agree with the contention canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 8/9/1981 passed by the State Government declaring respondent no.3 as belonging to Scheduled Tribe community should not have been accepted as a proof to treat respondent no.3 a Scheduled Tribe candidate. In that view of the matter, the decision taken by the respondent Petroleum Company for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Achalpur in favour of respondent no.3 is just and proper and needs no interference. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj