1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2005 of 2009 (Smt. Archana W/o Kamal Maheshwari ..VERSUS.. Hindustan petroleum Corpn. Ltd., and others) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==- Mr. C.A.Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.D.Meghe, Advocate for Respondent no.1 C ORAM : D.B.BHOSALE ; and PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 06th July, 2010. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has made following prayers : i] Direct respondent no.1 to correct the list of empaneled candidates, prepared by them, which is at annexure no.20, dt. 16-02-2008 and in that list, name of petitioner be directed to be placed at rank first and allot L.P.G. distributorship at Telhara, Dist. Akola, to petitioner. i-a] Direct respondent no.1 to produce entire file maintained by them for selection of candidate for allotment of distributorship, at Telhara, Distt. Akola, for perusal by the Hon’ble Court [clause no.i-a incorporated vide order passed by Hon’ble Court, on 10-8-2009], 2 i-b] Quash/set aside the order, at annexure no.30, dt. 26.8.2008, passed by the Central Information Commissioner, in Appeal numbered as “Decision No. 3144/IC/A/2008/F No. CIC/MA/A/2008/000977 and respondent no.1 be directed to supply copies of all the documents filed by respondents nos.2 to 5, alongwith the applications filed by them for grant of LPG distributorship, to the respondent no.1, [clause no. i-b incorporated, vide order of Hon’ble Court, dt.16-12-2009] 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties for some time and perused the record produced before us by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. 4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has basically challenged a panel of candidates selected in order of merits for allotment of LPG distributorship at Telhara, Dist. Akola, on the ground that the marks given to the petitioner by the Committee are wrong and they ought to have given her not less than 90 marks. We have perused the marks secured by the petitioner so also by the other candidates in the list above and below her. There are in all 52 candidates in the list, who had applied for the distributorship. The petitioner is at Sr. No.11 in the list, prepared in the order of interview, whereas three candidates, who are placed above the petitioner on merits, are at Sr. Nos. 50, 31 and 51 i.e. Smt. Santoshi Jagdish Agrawal, Smt. Kalawati P. Jaiswal and Smt. Seema Prashant Vikhe, respectively. 5. Insofar as Smt. Santoshi P. Agrawal and Smt. 3 Kalawati P. Jaiswal are concerned, learned counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that their names have been removed from the list after re-verification of their documents. In view thereof, now it is only Smt. Seema P. Vikhe, who is at Sr. No.51 in the list, is above the petitioner on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the original documents of both these candidates may be seen and shown to him also. The original files of both these candidates were placed before us by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. We have perused the statement of marks, from the original record, secured by each candidate and more particularly of the petitioner and Smt. Seema P. Vikhe. The marks obtained by the petitioner and Smt. Seema P. Vikhe, are as under : Sr. No. Names of the Candidates Capability to provide land and infra- structure/ facilities Capabil ity to provide finance Edu. Quali ficati on Age Exper ience Business ability/ acumen Person ality Total Marks Godo wn Show room 1. Smt. Archana K. Maheshwari 25 10 23 10 4 2 2.67 1.33 78 2. Smt. Seema P.. Vikhe 25 10 28.7 12 4 2 2.66 1.66 86.02 6. From bare perusal of the marks obtained by both these candidates, it is clear that under the head “capability to provide finance and educational qualification”, Smt. Seema P. Vikhe secured more marks. We, therefore, perused the original file of Smt. Seema Vikhe so also of the petitioner. As provided for in the terms and conditions for selection of a candidate for allotment of LPG distributorship, 4 it appears that Smt. Seema Vikhe has Fixed Deposits of about Rs.13 lakhs at her disposal in her name and in the name of her husband. Insofar as petitioner is concerned, she has Fixed Deposits of only about Rs.5 lakhs. Similarly, educational qualification of Smt. Seema Vikhe being more, she was given 12 marks as against 10 marks given to the petitioner. The record clearly supports the marks given by the Committee. In view thereof, we do not find any merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that on merits the petitioner is better candidate and that the Committee, with malafide intention, gave her less marks. We do not find any allegations in the petition attracting the ground of malafides against the committee. 7. The original record shown to us was also shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner, and insofar as these two heads i.e. capability to provide finance and educational qualification, are concerned, he could not and did not raise any dispute or point out any error on the part of the committee. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the fixed assets of the petitioner are more than of Smt. Seema Vikhe, and therefore, her capability to provide finance is far better, also has no merit since the value of fixed assets is of no consequence insofar as selection of candidates on merits is concerned. We are satisfied that the selection procedure followed by the Committee was as per the guidelines and they verified all the documents and having considered the performance in the interview, selected the candidates in order of merits. 5 8. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale