1 11.wp-7007-11.sxw jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7007 OF 2011 Kalyani Satish Patil ..Petitioner Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Petitioner. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent no.1 whereby Retail Out Let Dealership in respect of Site No.50 Savlaj, District Sangli, came to be issued. 3 It is not in dispute that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 4860 of 2011 whereby the order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the Redressal Committee of respondent no. 1 came to be challenged 2 11.wp-7007-11.sxw whereby the objection raised by the petitioner against the order of allotment issued by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent nos. 2 and 3, came to be rejected. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court as withdrawn by observing thus: “Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that in the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the order of allotment of the retail outlet issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 3, and only challenged the impugned order dated 13.4.2011 passed by the Redressal Committee of respondent No.1 whereby application submitted by the petitioner for allotment of retail outlet dealership in respect of Site No. 50, Savlaj, District Sangli came to be rejected. In the circumstances, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh Petition and prayed that the issues in the Petition may kindly be kept open. In the circumstances, Writ Petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for by keeping the issues open.” 4 Since this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of allotment issued in favour 3 11.wp-7007-11.sxw of respondent nos. 2 and 3, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel and perused the relevant documents placed on record. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has received less marks in the process of selection than the respondent nos. 2 and 3 (partnership concern) and therefore, on this short ground, no case is made out for indulgence. However, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the instant case, though there was a requirement as per the terms and conditions that the Valuation Report required to be submitted by the candidate, was required to be certified by the Government Approved Valuer in respect of the assets of the candidate. The petitioner has admittedly not submitted the Valuation Report of his assets duly certified by the Government Approved Valuer. If that is so, the action of the respondent no. 1 disallowing the claim of the petitioner on this count also is sustainable in law. Petition suffers from lack of merits and the same is dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA,J.]