1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5624 of 2010 [Salimkhan Shahjada Karimkhan Pathan Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Anand Parchure, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Adv., for respondent. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 12th October, 2011. 1. Heard. 2. The advertisement in response to which the petitioner had applied on 3rd May, 2010 required him to be owner of land admeasuring at least 20 meters x 24 meters for construction of a godown to store LPG cylinders. 3rd May, 2010 was the last date. Petitioner in his application submitted that he was having Notarized Agreement. The Notarized Agreement is dated 17th April, 2010 and it does not disclose handing over of possession of that land to petitioner. Sale-deed obtained by the petitioner is dated 26th July, 2010, i.e., after last date stipulated in the advertisement. 2 3. Mr. Parchure, in this background, has contended that after perusal of application made by the petitioner, petitioner was called upon to submit necessary documents vide communication dated 9th July, 2010 and accordingly the document of title was supplied. It is apparent that document of title has been supplied after last date and possession is also received by the petitioner at the time of registration and execution of sale-deed, i.e., on 26th July, 2010. 4. The contention that petitioner was found eligible and he was given 100 marks while evaluating his claim by respondent is, therefore, not valid. Mr. Sambre, learned counsel appearing for respondent, has contended that there cannot be any estoppel in such matters. 5. Advertisement required petitioner to be owner and in possession and petitioner was well aware that he was not owner of the land on the last date prescribed in the advertisement, and was not in possession thereof till 26th July, 2010. The reliance on principle of estoppel on his part is, therefore, misconceived. The condition published and communicated to all could not have been waived or modified indirectly and clandestinely. 6. Petition is rejected. 3 7. The interim order already operating shall continue for a further period of six weeks, and shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. Judge Judge |Hedau|