1911wp3160.09.odt 1 . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3160 of 2009 (Pragati G. Gajbhiye .vs. Union of India and Ors.) 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 F. M. Reis, JJ. Date : 19/11/2009. Heard Mr. P.S.Wathore, Adv. for petitioner, Mr.S.K.Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General of India, Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv. for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and Mr.R.A.Gupte, Adv. for respondent no. 4. In the instant petition, the grievance of petitioner is in respect of allotment of retail outlet of Kerosene in favour of respondent no.4 since respondent no.4 is not eligible as he has already got S.K.O. dealership of kerosene in the name of her father. It is contended that, as per the guidelines issued by the Petroleum Company as well as one of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, if the applicant or his relative has S.K.O., L.D.O. Dealership/LPG Dealership, he is not eligible to get retail outlet. It is contended that, since the father of respondent no.4 has already got S.K.O. dealership of kerosene, the respondent/Oil Company could 1911wp3160.09.odt 2 . not have allotted to him retail outlet and therefore, allotment of said outlet is inconsistent with the above referred condition and therefore, the said allotment is liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr.P.D.Meghe, Adv, for respondent nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the Senior Regional Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Company has filed affidavit dt. 23.9.2009 and in paras 10 and 11, it is specifically stated that neither respondent no.4 nor any of her family member holds retail outlet dealership of kerosene. It is further stated in the affidavit that only one member of her family holds retail license for sale of kerosene issued by Tahsildar which does not come within the definition of R.O./S.K.O./LPG dealership and therefore, respondent no.4 is not disqualified for allotment of retail outlet dealership. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. There is no reason for us to disbelieve the specific and positive statement made on affidavit by the Senior Regional Manager of Hindustan Petroleum Company which clearly shows that the retail license for sale of kerosene held by one of the members of the petitioner’s family does not come within the ambit of definition of R.O./S.K.O./LOG dealership in absence of any evidence to the contrary and therefore, respondent no.4 cannot be disqualified on this count. Consequently, the action appears to be 1911wp3160.09.odt 3 . consistent with the terms and conditions of the guidelines and therefore, the petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE jais