skc 1 WP-4833-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4833 OF 2011 Prakash Mahadeo Vaggoli ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Umesh R. Mankapure for Petitioner. Mr. Minoo Siodia and Mr. Kaushik N. Singh i/b. Rustamji & Ginwala for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. R. JOSHI, JJ. 27 July 2011. P.C. : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The writ petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 12th May 2011 issued by the respondent no.3 whereby the petitioner is informed that his selection for LPG Distributorship at Location Sankh, District Sangli under an open category stands cancelled. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner submitted an application pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents for allotment of LPG skc 2 WP-4833-11 Distributorship, petitioner was also selected for the said allotment and his name was also shown in the select list. However, by the impugned communication the selection of the petitioner came to be cancelled on the ground mentioned in the impugned communication, which reads thus: “Regarding the clause 9 of land for godown / showroom, land declared by you at Gat No.2/2A9 does not meet with the requirement of 20M X 24M for godown purpose as per RGGLV norms as pucca house is constructed on the said piece of land and no suitable open space is available for construction of godown on the land declared by you and hence same can not be considered for godown purpose as per RGGLV norms.” It is contended that the petitioner vide communication dated 30th May 2011 addressed to the respondents informed them that the petitioner is ready and willing to demolish the house and to construct godown as per the requirement. It is submitted that inspite of the willingness shown by the petitioner the respondents did not take into consideration this aspect of the issue and therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the impugned communication dated 12th May 2011. 3. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned communication. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was selected for an allotment of LPG Distributorship. However, at later skc 3 WP-4833-11 point of time it was noticed by the respondents the shortcoming so far as the space for godown is concerned as reflected in the impugned communication, which is reproduced herein above. It is therefore evident that when the application was submitted by the petitioner for an allotment of LPG Distributorship the proposal of the petitioner was not in conformity with clause 9 and the respondents were justified in cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the basis thereof. Merely showing willingness to demolish the house, as communicated by the petitioner to the respondents, in our view, does not render the decision of the respondent dated 12th May 2011 invalid in law. 4. Petition suffers from lack of merits. Same is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. R. JOSHI, J.)