wp8130.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8130 OF 2010 Srichand Hemndas Jagiasi, R/o-78, Sindhi Colony, Jalna Road, Aurangabad 431 005. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Union of India, Through it's Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi, 2) The Executive Director - LPG Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., "Hindustan Bhavan", 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001, 3) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Through its Dy. General Manager - LPG, Western Zone, R & C Building, Sir J.J. Road, Byculla, Mumbai - 400 008, 4) The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., H-1, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad 431 210 Maharashtra State. ...RESPONDENTS. wp8130.10 2 ... Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatake Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1. Smt. Anjali Bajpai Dube Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 3RD MARCH, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner, prays for following reliefs: "A. To call for record and proceedings in respect of selection/appointment of HPCL's LPG Distributorship for Aurangabad location pursuant to advertisement dated 06.09.2007 in daily Times of India published from Pune, wp8130.10 3 B. To direct the respondents to decide the applications dated 18.8.2009, 8.2.2010, 11.3.2010 all addressed to Executive Director LPG-HPCL, Mumbai and letters dated 18.8.2009, 8.2.2010 and 16.8.2010 all addressed to Dy. General Manager LPG (WZ) and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner within four weeks, by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be." 3. The Petitioner participated in the selection process for appointment of LPG dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at Aurangabad location. Three persons were empaneled. They are: Devyani Krishna Patil : First, Srichand Hemandas Jagiasi: Second, Anil Narsingrao Iravane: Third. wp8130.10 4 4. The Petitioner alleges that personal Assistant to Respondent No.4 tried to contact him. It was conveyed to the Petitioner that personal assistant to Respondent No.4 has demanded Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees. Five Lakh) and if he is ready to pay the said amount, then result declared on the H.P.C.L. Website can be tilted in favour of the Petitioner, by appointing him as H.P.C.L. Gas Distributor for Aurangabad location. The Petitioner contends that on 2nd July 2009, he contacted SP/CBI/ACB/Pune and lodged complaint in respect of demand of illegal gratification for changing the results of selection of LPG Gas dealer. It is further alleged that on 4th July 2009, the SP/CBI/ACB/Pune laid a trap and arrested a person red handed while collecting Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) at the residence of the Petitioner and also recorded his entire conversation with the Petitioner and P.A. to Respondent No.4. The Petitioner claims to have addressed representations on 10th July 2009, to wp8130.10 5 various authorities, as described in Para 11 of the Petition. 5. Consequent to the notice issued by this Court on 9th September 2010, the Respondent Corporation filed affidavit in reply. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits that C.B.I. has already filed charge-sheet and issue in respect of field verification is also part of the investigation. Therefore, the Corporation did not finalize the selection of the dealer. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks directions in accordance with the prayers made. The counsel contends that there is no nexus between the C.B.I. conducting the enquiry and Corporation deciding the application filed by the Petitioner. According to the counsel, pendency of criminal case is no ground for the Corporation for wp8130.10 6 not deciding the application and not finalizing the candidate for allotment of the dealership. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent Corporation submits that Petitioner's application would be decided by the Respondent Corporation on its own merits and the decision would be communicated to the Petitioner. 9. Considering the submissions advanced and the statements made, we observe that the Respondent Corporation would decide the representation of the Petitioner on its own merits within SIX WEEKS from today and communicate the decision to the Petitioner. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction we are not inclined to pass any other direction. The Writ Petition is disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR11/wp8130.10