mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5471 OF 2008 RAVINDRA S/o SANDIPAN GHATPARDE .. PETITIONER Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. S. J. Ghogare for the petitioner Mr. Poornima Awasthi with K. J. Kandpile for R-1 CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED: 30/9/2009 P.C. The petitioner has inter alia prayed that the respondents i.e. Union of India and the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation be directed not to allot the L.P.G. distributorship at village Tembhurni, Taluka and District Solapur, to anybody. He has further prayed that respondent 2 be directed to issue a fresh advertisement and allow the petitioner to take part in the interview and the allotment of L.P.G. distributorship may then be decided on the basis of law and merit. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent issued an advertisement dated 6/9/07 and invited applications for distributionship of L.P.G. at different places in Maharashtra including at village Tembhurni, Taluka and District Solapur. 3. The petitioner submitted his application by speed post on 1/11/07. The last date of submission of application was 12/11/07. According to the petitioner the application was received by the 2nd respondent on 3/11/07 whereas according to the 2nd respondent it was received on 21/11/07. The 2nd respondent’s case is that the application of the petitioner was not considered because it was received after the last date of submission of applications. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the application was received by the 2nd respondent on 3/11/07. In this connection he has drawn our attention to Exhibit-D which is addressed by the Deputy Manager, Business Development Group, Pune, to the petitioner. In short the said letter states that the petitioner’s application was delivered to the addressee on 3/11/07 under proper receipt. He pointed out that there is a stamp of the postal department on the envelope which indicates that the application was received by the 2nd respondent on 3/11/07. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has drawn our attention to acknowledgment on the envelope. On the envelope there is an endorsement ‘application received’. Below that endorsement date 21/11/2007 is mentioned. The respondents are relying on this endorsement to contend that the application was received on 21/11/07. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that in the register of the 2nd respondent it is categorically stated that the application was received on 21/11/07. 5. In writ jurisdiction it is not possible for us to go into this question and give any affirmative finding as to when exactly the application was received by the 2nd respondent. Admittedly the outlet at Tembhurni has been allotted on 21/2/09, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allotted the said outlet. The petitioner has also prayed that respondent 2 be directed to issue fresh advertisement and allow the petitioner to take part in the interview. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, in case fresh advertisement is issued and if the petitioner submits an application and, if the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria, his case may be considered for such allotment sympathetically and in accordance with law. 6. Petition is disposed of. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)