Bombay High Court

AMIT UDDHAVRAO GILBILEversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF PEROLEUM AND NATURE GAS AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is dismissed because the objection was filed beyond the 30‑day limitation prescribed in the selection guidelines, and the earlier precedent bars belated challenges.

Summary

The petitioner, Amit Uddhavrao Gilbile, challenged the issuance of a Letter of Intent dated 14‑02‑2025 by Respondent No.2 in favour of Respondent No.4 for a MS/HSD retail outlet, alleging that the selection was favoured despite adverse reports. The petitioner had filed an objection on 21‑12‑2023, which was rejected by Respondent No.2 on 31‑01‑2025. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to raise an objection within the 30‑day period prescribed in the selection guidelines and relied on a prior decision of this Court (Writ Petition No. 11844 of 2025) dismissing a similar belated challenge. The Court examined the guideline (No. 18) that bars complaints filed after 30 days from the draw of lots/bidding process and found the petitioner's objection untimely. Consequently, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether an objection to the issuance of a provisional selection letter filed after the 30‑day period prescribed in the dealer‑selection guidelines is maintainable.
Whether the petitioner disclosed true and correct facts and made proper prayers in the writ petition.
Whether the precedent set in Writ Petition No. 11844 of 2025 is applicable to the present facts.

Subjects

Dealer selection
Retail outlet allocation
Procedural limitation
Grievance redressal system
Administrative law
Public procurement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:45582-DB


                                              {1}                      4-wp-8712-2026

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               4 WRIT PETITION NO. 8712 OF 2026

                                       Amit Uddhavrao Gilbile
                                              VERSUS
                                     Union Of India And Others
                                                  ...
              Ms. Naseembanu Iliyas Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner
              Mr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for the State
              Mr. Rajendra D. Sanap, Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 1
              Mr. Anand Bhandari, Advocate for Respondents No. 2 and 5
                                                .......

                                    CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                              ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.


                                       DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.   Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Respondent No 2 of

              issuing Letter of Intent dated 14.02.2025 in favour of Respondent No.

              4 for establishment of MS/HSD Retail Outlet at Gut No. 125, Village-

              Ashta, Taluka- Bhoom, District- Osmanabad.


              2.   Pursuant to the advertisement dated 28.06.2023 published by

              Respondent No. 2, petitioner submitted an application for allotment of

              MS/HSD Retail outlet dealership, so also Respondent No. 4. On

              14.02.2025, Letter of Intent is issued in favour of Respondent No. 4.


              3.   It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of adverse reports of

              the concerned authorities, special favours are shown to Respondent
                                 {2}                        4-wp-8712-2026

No. 4 and outlet is allotted to him.


4.    Learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed on record copy of

objection raised by the Petitioner dated 21.12.2023 and reply of

Respondent No. 2 rejecting the said objection dated 31.01.2025.


5.    Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Advocate for

Respondent No. 1, learned Advocate for Respondents No. 2 and 5 and

learned AGP for the State. Perused the record.


6.    Learned Advocate for Respondents No. 2 to 5 has placed on

record brochure of selection of dealers for regular and rural retail

outlets, wherein guidelines for selection of dealers for regular and rural

retail outlets through draw of lots/bidding process are given. By relying

on decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11844 of 2025, he submits

that, since the petitioner has failed to raise objection within 30 days of

issuance   of   provisional   selection   letter   dated   06.12.2023    to

Respondent No. 4, petition is liable to be dismissed. He further submits

that petitioner has not averred in the petition about raising of the

objections dated 21.12.2023 and the order dated 31.01.2025 rejecting

said objections. He, therefore, submits that there is no substance in

the writ petition and same deserves to be dismissed.
                                  {3}                      4-wp-8712-2026

7.       There is substance in the arguments of Respondents No. 2 and 5

that the petitioner has not disclosed true and correct facts and has not

made proper prayers.

8.       Apart from the above, the guideline No. 18 provides Grievance

Redressal System and guideline 18 (ii) provides that any complaint

received after 30 days from the date of draw of lots/bidding

process/direction selection will not be entertained.

9.       Though, the petitioner has raised objection to the issuance of

provisional selection letter to Respondent No. 4, since it is beyond the

30 days limitation prescribed under the guidelines, same cannot be

considered.

10.      Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 has rightly relied upon

the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 11844 of 2025 wherein in

similar facts this Court dismissed the belated challenge raised by the

petitioner therein to the selection of Respondent. Observations made in

the said decision are squarely applicable to the facts of the present

case.


11.      For the aforestated reasons, we find no merit in the challenge

raised by the petitioner. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)                (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…