Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.9774/2009 Mr Raviraj Dnyandeo Gadepatil ..Petitioner. vs. The Union of India and ors ..Respondents. Mr G.N.Salunkhe, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Asish Kamat i/b R.M.G.Law Associates for Respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 14TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. The petitioner has been denied the appointment as a dealer by the Oil Company on the ground that the experience certificate submitted by him was a doubtful document. The respondent has relied on the statement made by the father of the petitioner while he was under cross-examination in a criminal case that his son, the present petitioner, never worked for M/s Ratnadeep Indane which had issued experience certificate in favour of the petitioner. We have been informed by the learned Counsel for the Oil Company that the Proprietor of M/s Ratnadeep Indane has also written a letter to respondent No.3 that he had not given any certificate in favour of the petitioner. We also found from the cross- examination of the father of the petitioner that he has flatly denied that the petitioner was looking after the financial transactions of the Gas Agency. He has also stated that his son i.e., the present petitioner is running a grocery shop. We, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show us the order by which he was appointed to work by M/s Ratnadeep Indane who has issued the experience certificate in his favour. The learned counsel informed us that there was no appointment order issued. There is also no termination order issued. There is no material on record to show in what capacity the petitioner gained experience of work in a gas agency. We find that one of the essential documents filed by the petitioner is of a doubtful character. The Oil Company is justified in declining to appoint such a person as its dealer. Petition is rejected. 2. At this stage, request is made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner for continuation of ad- interim order. The effect of ad-interim order is that Gas Company cannot appoint a dealer for distribution of oil. In our opinion, continuing of ad-interim order which has a result of affecting interest of the public adversely cannot be continued. The request is, therefore, rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)