ASHWINKUMAR SURESH PARDESHI vs BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Judgment text excerpt

9-WP-2165-2024 (OS).DOCX Mayur IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2165 OF 2024 Ashwinkumar Suresh Pardeshi ...Petitioner Versus Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd ...Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr. Rameshwar N. Gite a/w Adv. Pratiksha P. Shelke, Adv. Sandesh Shinde, Adv. Aditi Thakre, for Petitioner. Mr. R.V. Pawar a/w Adv. Amol Bavane i/b Pragnya Legal, for Respondent No. 1- BPCL. Mr. Chirag Mody a/w Mr. Ashok Purohit & Janhavi i/b Ashok Purohit & Co., for Respondent No. 2. ______________________________________________________ CORAM : M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED : 26 September 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT(PER. M.S. Sonak,J) :- 1. Heard Mr. Rameshwar Gite, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.V. Pawar instructed by Pragnya Legal for the first respondent and Mr. Chirag Modi, for the second respondent (IOCL). 2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Mr Gite agrees that no relief has been sought against the second respondent and prays to delete the second Page 1 of 5 9-WP-2165-2024 (OS).DOCX respondent from the array of parties. 4. The Necessary Amendment is to be carried out forthwith. 5. Reverification is dispensed with. 6. The petitioner seeks an appropriate writ for allotment of retail outlet dealership at the location specified in the prayer clause ‘A’ of the petition. 7. Mr Gite submits that the petitioner was selected on a draw of lots, and now the first respondent is avoiding allotment for reasons which are not germane or relevant. 8. He points out that no decision regarding the dropping of the entire selection process has been communicated to the petitioner, and in any e