srk 1 wp-8749-10.sxw THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8749 OF 2010 Shri Hemchandra Ashok More ... Petitioner Versus Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and others. ... Respondents Ms. Bhavana Amare for the petitioner. Mr.Girish R. Agrawal respondent No.3. Mr. Minoo Siodia with Ms. Chhaya Asher i/by M/s. Rustamji and Girwala for respondent No.1. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J. Monday, December 06, 2010 P.C. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the decision of respondent No.1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to give Letter of Intent to respondent No.3 after cancelling the previous decision of the respondent-Corporation to give Letter of Intent to the petitioner for retail outlet dealership of petrol pump at Dindori town. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation states that after the first decision was taken, respondent No.3 made a representation pointing out that there was an error on the part of the Corporation in not giving respondent No.3 marks for having own land which entitles the applicant to get 35 marks. srk 2 wp-8749-10.sxw 3. When the respondent-Corporation realised the above error, it rectified the mistake and upon giving 35 marks to respondent No.3, he became the main meritorious candidate for the purpose of awarding retail outlet dealership in question. Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation has decided to award the retail outlet dealership in question to respondent No.3, subject to field verification. It is the above decision which is challenged in the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 states at the hearing that the impugned decision of the respondent-Corporation in favour of respondent No.3 is fully justified and is legal and valid and without prejudice to the said submission, it is stated that in any view of the matter, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had also invited applications for retail outlet dealership of the petrol pump at the same location i.e. Dindori town and that in the said selection also, respondent No.3 was placed at serial No.1 and the present petitioner at the place at serial No.2. It is submitted that if the present petition is withdrawn or dismissed and accordingly, the ratail outlet dealership is awarded to the petitioner at Dindori town by respondent No.1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. then respondent No.3 is ready and willing to give up his claim for such retail outlet dealership which is awarded by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that this fact is brought to her notice today and the petitioner is not present before the Court today. 6. In view of the above and having regard to the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation about the justification for srk 3 wp-8749-10.sxw giving additional marks to respondent NO.3 for having his own land, we dismiss this petition with a clarification that it will be open to the petitioner to approach Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. for awarding retail outlet dealership of the petrol pump at Dindori in favour of the petitioner. Parties to act on the ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Associate. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.