IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 37265 of 2010(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KUMARI KURIAKOSE, PAREKUDIYIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LPG), INDANE AREA INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., 682 036. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.E.K. NANDAKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37265 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Pursuant to a notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the petitioner applied for appointment as LPG Distributor at Rajakkad/Santhanpara in Idukki District. After the applications were processed, empanelled list of candidates (Ext.P2) was prepared. The petitioner was ranked second in the list. It is stated that the name of the first candidate, Ms.Sheena Koshy, was deleted as she was found ineligible and presently the petitioner is the candidate ranked first in the order of merit. While matters stood thus, the second respondent issued a notice to the petitioner seeking certain clarifications. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 reply. Later, the Chief Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. at Cochin issued Ext.P5 show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why her name should not be deleted from the list for the reason that she had made incorrect and false statements as regards her income, in the application for LPG distributorship. Upon receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 reply dated 30.8.2010. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though more than three months have passed after Ext.P6 reply was submitted, till date, a final decision has not been taken in the matter. W.P.(C) No.37265/2010 : 2 : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to take a final decision in the matter within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Sri.E.K.Nanda Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation, upon instructions, submitted that the competent authority among the respondents will take a final decision in the matter having due regard to the explanation offered by the petitioner in Ext.P6 reply expeditiously and in any event within one month from today. In the light of the said submission, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to take a final decision in the matter, after considering the case set out by the petitioner in Ext.P6 reply expeditiously and in any event, within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. The competent authority among the respondents shall also afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard in person before taking a final decision in the matter. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.