← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/5099/2019dismissedrule discharged

Namrata Sandip Dongre v. The Union Of India, Thr. Secretary Of Ministry Of Petroleum, Govt. Of India, New Delhi And Another

2020-01-20Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravi K. Deshpande,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Amit B. Borkar2 pages

1 86.WP5099.19.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5099/2019 Namrata Sandip Dongre Vs. The Union of India and others. ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders Court' s or Judge'

s order of directions and Registrar'

s orders .............................................................................................................................................. Shri R. M. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 20th JANUARY, 2020.

.

The claim of the petitioner for grant of Petroleum Dealership has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not the owner of the land as on the date of making application in Group-1 category. This is the subject matter of the challenge in this petition. 2.

What we find from the application submitted by the petitioner on 19.12.2018 is that, in the column of date of registration of Sale-Deed or Gift Deed, the petitioner has given the date as 17.12.2018 and the name of the owner is shown as Shankar Shamrao Zade. It means that on the date of making application on 19.12.2018, the petitioner was not the owner of the land, but Shankar Shamrao Zade was the owner of the land. We find that this is nothing but a mischief, on the basis of which, the petitioner was issued the letter of selection on 31.01.2019. It is subsequently discovered that the Sale-Deed was executed on 05.02.2019 in respect of the said land and the petitioner was not the

2 86.WP5099.19.odt owner of the land on the date of making application i.e. on 19.12.2018. The petitioner therefore, could not have been classified in Group-1 category.

3.

In this background, we do not find that any case is made out.

4.

Writ Petition is dismissed.

JUDGE JUDGE RGurnule