{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 2026:BHC-AUG:45582-DB {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