THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Writ Petition No. 919 of 2010 Dated: 05.07.2010 Between: Kalavathi Devineni, Anantapur District. … Petitioner And Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Kurnool District and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 919 of 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent-Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited in seeking to allot the Distributorship of Domestic LPG Bharat Gas at Adony in favour of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the notification was issued on 01.10.2007 inviting applications for awarding the allotment of Domestic LPG Distributorship at Adoni under the category of “women general”. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein who secured 89.16 marks out of 100 marks was selected by the duly constituted selection committee and the 2nd respondent herein was shown as the next empanelled candidate. This writ petition has been filed contending that the action of the 1st respondent-Corporation in proposing to allot the distributorship to the 2nd respondent ignoring the fact that the petitioner stood first in the panel is arbitrary and illegal. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the 1st respondent- Corporation as well as the 2nd respondent. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is explained that one of the important terms specified in the notification was that the amount mentioned in the savings Bank account of the candidate should remain in the Bank for a minimum period of three months from the date of application or from the date of interview whichever is earlier. The writ petitioner in the application had shown Rs.18 lakhs in the savings Bank account and based on the statement she was awarded 18 marks. However, before issuing the letter of intent when the field verification was taken up, it was found that the writ petitioner had withdrawn the amount from the savings Bank account before the expiry of three months. It is explained that the petitioner had deposited Rs.18 lakhs on 31.10.2007 out of which Rs.3 lakhs was withdrawn on 01.11.2007 and the balance Rs.15 lakhs was withdrawn on 02.11.2007. As the petitioner had violated the conditions in the notification, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered and it was decided to allot the distributorship to the 2nd respondent who was the next empanelled candidate. The stand taken by the 1st respondent in the counter affidavit could not be disputed by the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to satisfy the essential eligibility criteria, the impugned action of the 1st respondent-Corporation cannot be held to be arbitrary and illegal on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ​ ______________ Date: 05.07.2010 G. ROHINI, J Note: Issue C.C. in one week. B/o KLP