IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24578 of 2011(V) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ RENU SHAJI,W/O.ADV.SHAJI.J.KODENKANDATH, KODENKANDATH HOUSE,PO KANJANI,THRISSUR. BY ADVS. SRI.JIJO PAUL, SMT.T.RESMI DAMODARAN. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. BHARATH PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED, LPG BOTTLING PLANT,AMBALAMUGAL.P.O,REPRESENTED BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER,KOCHI-682 302. 2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER,BHARATH PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED,LPG BOTTLING PLANT,AMBALAMUGAL.P.O., KOCHI-682 302. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.P.GOPINATH. . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.24578/2011 V APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT.P1(A):TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.8.2011 ISSUED WHILE SENDING EXT.P1. EXHIBIT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WHICH WAS SENT BY REGISTERED POST DATED 31.8.2011. EXHIBIT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SENDING OF EXT.P2. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: ANNEX.A: COPY OF ENTRY PASS DTD. 31/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECURITY OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT PERSONS WERE PERMITTED TO ENTER AT 4.47 P.M. ANNEX.B: COPY OF ENTRY PASSES DTD. 31/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECURITY OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT PERSONS WERE PERMITTED TO ENTER AT 4.55.P.M. ANNEX.C: COPY OF ENTRY PASSES DTD. 31/08/2011 ISSUED BY THE SECURITY OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENT CORPORATION EVIDENCING THE FACT THAT PERSONS WERE PERMITTED TO ENTER AT 4.58 P.M. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P (C) No. 24578 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition is filed for an order directing the respondents to receive the original of Ext.P2 application sent by the petitioner through registered post on 1.9.2011 and to treat it as one received within time. It is stated that the application was sent through an employee of the petitioner's husband who reported in the office of the respondents by 4.40 p.m. on 31.8.2011, but he was not allowed to enter the office and was informed that he cannot submit the application as he has arrived late. The petitioner submits that in such circumstances, she was constrained to sent the application by registered post on the next day. She contends that as the respondents were responsible for not allowing her representative to submit the application in person on 31.8.2011, the application sent by post on the next day should be entertained. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has filed a statement dated 29.9.2011. It is stated that all the applications received till 5 p.m. on 31.8.2011 were received. It is stated that the Security Officer had issued entry passes after 4.40 p.m. to three persons, viz., at 4.47 p.m., 4.55 p.m. and 4.58 p.m. True copies W.P.(C) No.24578 of 2011 2 thereof are also produced as Annexure A, B & C respectively along with the statement. The allegation that the respondents denied entry to the representative of the petitioner at 4.40 p.m. is also denied. It is also stated that though a telephone call was received in the office of the respondents at 5.15 p.m. and a request was made over telephone to receive the application, the person who called was informed that it cannot be accepted because the time prescribed for acceptance of the application was over. 3. The notification inviting applications was issued towards the end of July, 2011. The last date stipulated for submission of the applications was 31.8.2011. The petitioner had nearly one month's time to submit the application. She has not stated any reason as to why she waited till the last date and did not sent it by post earlier. The explanation offered by the petitioner was that the person through whom it was sent was prevented entry at about 4.40 p.m. to the office of the respondents. The statement filed on behalf of the respondents and the documents accompanying it disclose that entry passes had been issued to three persons after 4.45 p.m. on 31.8.2011. The petitioner has no case that while some persons were given entry, her representative was not permitted to enter the office. In such circumstances, I find no reason to accept the version of the W.P.(C) No.24578 of 2011 3 petitioner that her representative was prevented from entering the office of the respondents for submitting the application. I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 24578 of 2011 JUDGMENT Dated:- 20th October, 2011 --------------------------------------