IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 32675 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- KISHORE K.N., S/O.K.R.NARAYANAN, KALLARA HOUSE P.O., PERINJANAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT . PIN 680 686. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DISTRIBUTOR SELECTION COMMITTEE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, AREA OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY, NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 3. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, MARKETING DIVISION, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR R2 & R3 BY ADV.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR - STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WPC NO.33082 OF 2008 ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32675 & 33082 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Common contentions are advanced in these two writ petitions, in which the challenge is mounted against the decision taken by the respective Distribution Selection Committee, rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for domestic LPG distributorship. 2. When a notification (Ext.P1) was issued in this regard, the petitioners submitted applications. Ext.P2 in W.P.(C)No.32675/08 is one such application. Clause 19(c) of the notification makes it clear that incomplete applications will not be considered. To the misfortune of the petitioners, though the applications were filled up, they have omitted to subscribe their signatures in the place where they are required to give a declaration as regards the authenticity of the information given by them and also as regards the completeness of the application. The Selection Committee treated the absence of a declaration as crucial and found that the applications, therefore, cannot be considered on merits. It is this decision, that has been challenged by the petitioners. W.P.(C).No.32675 & 33082 of 2008 :: 2 :: 3. Several contentions have been taken up by the petitioners in challenging the action taken by the Selection Committee. It is contended that Clause 19(b) cannot be considered as mandatory, but is only directory. The applications are otherwise complete and that no prejudice will be caused to any other person by permitting the petitioners to put their signatures. It is a curable defect and a permission to cure such defects shall not cause any detriment any other participant. 4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the respondents that all that the respondents did was to scrutinise the applications to find whether they are in order as is required under Clauses 19(b) and (c) of the notification. There is no residuary provision enabling the committee to permit any person, who has submitted a defective application to cure the defects. In the absence of such a provision, it would have been an improper exercise on the part of the respondents to allow the petitioners to cure the defects. 5. I heard Mr.K.S.Bharathan and Mr.P.S.Biju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Jayasankar, learned counsel for the respondents. W.P.(C).No.32675 & 33082 of 2008 :: 3 :: 6. After lengthy arguments were advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they may be permitted to pursue a representation before the appropriate superior authority of the Corporation and that the contentions otherwise urged by them in the writ petitions be left open. I see no reason why such permission should not be granted. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting each of the petitioners to file a representation before the appropriate authority of the Indian Oil Corporation raising such contentions as are available, including those contentions urged in these writ petitions. If such representations are filed within two weeks from today, the competent authority shall take a decision therein without any delay as such. The contentions urged by the petitioners in these writ petitions are left open. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge