IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 32842 of 2005(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.I.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.M.C.ITTIYATHI, RESIDING AT MANGALAMUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PERINGASSERI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, I.B.P.COMPANY LTD., ETTOOR-CHACKOO CHAMBERS, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI. 2. THE I.B.P. COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KOCHI. 3. ISSAC T.DEVASSIA, THEREKAPLACKAL HOUSE, KOOVAPALLY P.O., THODUPUZHA. 4. ARUN BALE M., MUTHANATTE HOUSD, PERINGASSERY, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, IBP.CO.LTD. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC, IBP.CO.LTD. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R3 SRI.S.K.MOHAMED SAJEER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 32842/2005. -------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 5-10-2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF MARK SHEET. EXT.P4 SHORT LIST DT. 25-10-2005. EXT.P5 NOTIFICATION DT. 16-2-2004. EXT.P6 LETTER OF INTERVIEW DT. 5-10-2005. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 5-10-2006. EXT.P8 MARK LIST DT. 25-10-2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: -------------------------------------- EXT.R1-1 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY R4. EXT.R1-2 COPY OF CASTE CERTIFICATE. EXT.R3(a) TRUE COPY OF CASTE CERTIFICATE. EXT.R3(b) LETTER DT. 25-10-2006. EXT.R3(c) LETTER DT. 7-11-2006. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 32842 of 2005 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a rival applicant for allotment of a retail outlet for petroleum products, pursuant to a notification inviting applications for such allotment by respondents 1 and 2. In the select list prepared, the 3rd respondent was the first, the 4th respondent the second and the petitioner, the third. The 3rd respondent was given the allotment and he has been running the outlet eversince. The petitioner challenges that allotment on the basis that respondents 3 and 4 are not eligible as per the qualifications prescribed for such allotment. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent wherein it has been categorically stated that as per the norms prescribed, the comparative merits of the three qualified applicants have been assessed and a select list has been prepared, based on which only the 3rd respondent has been given the allotment. They support such selection and allotment. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me by producing relevant document along with the writ petition to substantiate his contentions in the writ petition. The notification inviting applications has not been produced. The guidelines applicable for selection and the criteria therefor are also not produced, without which I cannot even consider the contentions of the petitioner especially since the allegations are denied in the counter affidavit. As such, based on the original pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the allotment in favour of the 3rd respondent is in any way faulty. 5. However, the petitioner now submits that in view of the document subsequently obtained by the petitioner by resorting to W.P.C. No. 32842/2005 -: 2 :- proceedings under the Right to Information Act, which he has produced today, the 3rd respondent is clearly ineligible for even being considered for allotment and hence the allotment in favour of the 3rd respondent is liable to be cancelled. I am not inclined to consider this contention at this point of time. The allotment was way back in 2005. The 3rd respondent has spent lakhs of rupees for establishing the retail outlet and has been running the same. Going by the original pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to convince me that selection of the 3rd respondent for allotment is in any way faulty. Even the information stated to be obtained by the petitioner now has not been put to the authorities at the time of original selection. Without somebody bringing it to the knowledge of the authority concerned, I do not think that the authority could have considered the same. The petitioner has not taken any contentions in the writ petition to the effect that the 3rd respondent is ineligible to be considered for selection for that reason. The writ petition has not been amended also. In fact, earlier, this writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 13-6-2008 and was later restored to file. As such, after a long lapse of three years, I am not inclined to consider the new contention of the petitioner, which was not raised in the writ petition, even if the same has probative value, in so far as on the basis of the pleadings as obtaining in the writ petition, the petitioner has not been able to convince me that the allotment in favour of the 3rd respondent is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/