IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13976 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- BIJU.M.A, S/O ANTHONY, AGED 31 YEARS, MUNDANMANY HOUSE, KANJIRAPILLY .P.O, CHALAKKUDY- VIA, THRISSUR -DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,RETAIL DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HINDUSTN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,N.H-17,CANNORE ROAD, NEAR ELATHUR RAILWAY STATION, ELATHUR.P.O, CALICUT-DIST.PIN-673 303. 2. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, RETAIL DIVISIONAL OFFICE, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,N.H-17 CANNORE ROAD, NEAR ELATHUR RAILWAY STATION,ELATHUR P.O, CALICUT-DIST, PIN-673 303. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN BLDG. POST BOX NO.3045, EGMORE CHENNAI, PIN-600008. 4. CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE COIMBATORE, BIG BAZAAR STREET, COIMBATORE-641 001. 5. SHRI.VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 45, S/O.ANTHONY, MUNDANMANY HOUSE, PARIYARAM, P.O. PARIYARAM, CHALAKUDY VIA, THRISSUR-DIST. R1 TO R4 BY STADING COUNSEL SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R5 BY ADV.SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.13976 OF 2008-L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF ADVERTISEMENT IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DT.1.8.2007 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF GEERAL CONDITIONS OF SELECTION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DT.1.8.2007 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.25.8.2007 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAY OUT EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF RESULTS OF CANDIDATE INTERVIEWED ON 2.11.2007 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER PARIYARAM DT.26.11.2007 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.14.8.2007 ISSUED BY SBI CHALAKUDY BRANCH EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.20.11.2007 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN WP(C0 36451/2008 DT.11.12.2008 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28.12.2008 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.10.3.2008 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT.28.5.08 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PARIYARAM VILLAGE EXT.R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOC NO.19125/08/K/DIS DT.21.11.08 / TRUE COPY / Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 13976 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner and 5th respondent competed for being appointed as licensees of retail outlet of petroleum products. The selection was held and the 5th respondent was chosen pursuant to the interview dated 02.11.07. Petitioner made a representation to the competent authority on 20.11.07 challenging the selection. That was enquired into through the investigation officer of the Company and the petitioner was heard personally by the investigation officer at Palakkad on 03.01.08. Thereafter the General Manager has issued Ext.P11 stating reasons for the preference given to the 5th respondent over the petitioner. This is under challenge. 2. The fundamental plea is that in spite of Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner was not heard by the General Manager who is the competent authority. 3. The petitioner has placed Ext.P2 guidelines which say that the complaint redressal system would be in terms of the WPC No.13976 of 2008 -:2:- guidelines for dealer selection. When Ext.P9 writ petition came up before this Court, Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner stood addressed to the Senior Regional Manager. Obviously therefore, the counsel for the Company submitted before this Court that the appropriate authority to consider that representation was the General Manager of the concerned zone and the representation of the petitioner would be forwarded to that authority for appropriate consideration. But that does not mean that the General Manager ought to have himself heard the petitioner because what ultimately comes out is the institutional decision of the grievance redressal mechanism whereby the General Manager is shown to have taken into consideration the statements made in the personal hearing, admittedly accorded to the petitioner on 03.01.08. The petitioner was heard by the investigation officer and therefore the impugned decision cannot be faulted on the ground that the person who heard did not decide the matter. 4. With that, adverting to Ext.P8 it needs to be noticed that the plea of the petitioner as against the selection of 5th respondent was primarily regarding the quality of the land WPC No.13976 of 2008 -:3:- offered by him and also regarding his financial capacity. Those issues have been answered by the competent authority in Ext.P11. The same cannot therefore be found fault with on any ground of error of jurisdiction or legal infirmity. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Judge. ttb WPC No.13976 of 2008 -:4:-