THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 13952 of 2010 Dated: 23.06.2010 Between: M.Surendra, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep., by its Chairman, and another. … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Writ petition No. 13952 of 2010 O R D E R: In response to the notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation, M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., jointly inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment of distributors under Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitharak Distributorship, the petitioner made an application on 29.04.2010 for LPG distributorship at Losarigutlapadu Village notified at sl.No.73 of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., the first respondent. However, the respondent-Corporation by letter dated 08.05.2010, returned the petitioner’s application stating that it was received on 03.05.2010 after the due date. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that by accepting the petitioner’s application, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents and on the other hand, it would ensure healthy competition so as to select a suitable candidate for allotment of distributorship. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the notification itself it was clearly mentioned that the applications shall reach the Office of the Corporation before 5.00 p.m. on 30.04.2010. Clause 14(D) of the notification further made it clear that the applications received after the cut off date on account of postal delay as well as the incomplete applications will not be considered and in such circumstances, there will not be any further correspondence with the Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioner sent his application on 29.04.2010 and it was received in the Office of the Corporation on 03.05.2010. However, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as the petitioner’s application was sent by speed post on 29.04.2010 within the cut off date, the action of the respondent-Corporation in rejecting the application is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in K.SUJATHA V. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1]. The ratio laid down by the Full Bench in the said decision that Rule 3 of the Rules relating to the motion of no confidence in Upa-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat or Vice- president/President of Mandal Parishad or Vice-Chairman/Chairman of Zilla Parishad (notified in G.O.Ms.No.200, PR and RD (Mandal-I) dated 28.04.1998) which provides for service of notice on a member with less than 15 clear days prior to the date of meeting was mandatory, has no application to the facts of the case on hand. This is a case where it was made clear in the notification itself that the cut off date was 30.04.2010 and any application received after that would not be considered. Since, the petitioner’s application was admittedly received on 03.05.2010 i.e. after the last date prescribed for receipt of the applications, the respondent-Corporation was justified in returning the petitioner’s application. The Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 23.06.2010 KLP [1] 2004 (3) ALT 682 (F.B.)