← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/1778/2019disposed offdismissed for default

Kunal Keshav Koli v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd Through General Manager And Another

2019-12-02Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Avinash G. Gharote2 pages

(1) 104-wp-1778-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 104 WRIT PETITION NO.1778 OF 2019 KUNAL KESHAV KOLI ..PETITIONER

VERSUS

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS ...

Mr. Sushant V. Dixit, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Dube (Bajpai), Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

...

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : 02nd DECEMBER, 2019.

PER COURT:- 1.

Mr. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially considered from Group-I (priority group). Subsequently, his candidature is rejected. Initially, Gram Panchayat, Ichchhapur and Nimkhedi (Bk.) were part of the same group Gram Panchayat. Subsequently, they are bifurcated. The land of the petitioner offered is at Ichchhapur. As per the advertisement, the location was at Nimkhedi (Bk.). The learned counsel submits that the petitioner could have been considered from Group-II as his residence is in the concerned revenue sub division of the advertised location.

(2) 104-wp-1778-2019 2.

Mrs. Dube, learned counsel submits that the land offered by the petitioner was not as per the location advertised.

3.

We have considered the submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

4.

The undisputed fact emerging from the record is that the petitioner is resident of Ichchhapur and the land offered by the petitioner is situated at Ichchhapur. The location advertised was for village Nimkhedi (Bk.), Taluka Muktainagar, Dist. Jalgaon.

5.

As admittedly the land offered by the petitioner was for different location than advertised, the application of the petitioner itself was not tenable.

6.

As far as refund of the amount is concerned, the petitioner may approach the authority concerned.

7.

In light of the above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE Devendra/December-19