IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7424 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEEPTHI.P, W/O.SREENATH P.K., SREE PADMAM, AYANCHERI P.O.,KOZHIKODE 673 544. BY ADV. MR.S.V.BALAKRISHNA IYER, SENIOR ADVOCATE MR.P.B.KRISHNAN MS.GEETHA P.MENON MR.K.JAYAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. L.P.G.REGIONAL OFFICE, BALA VILLAGE, VIA KATIPALLA MANGALORE 575 030. 3. ZONAL MANAGER (L.P.G) HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. NATARAJAN BUILDING, IV FLOOR, P.B.NO. 3045 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, CHENNAI 600 008. MR. E.K. NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 7424 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for award of LPG dealership by the 1st respondent. In the interview, the petitioner scored the highest marks. However, she was not granted the dealership. It is under the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents do not conduct the verification of the facts stated in the application submitted by the petitioner before the interview. It is only after the selection that the verification of the particulars given in the application form is being made. Accordingly, after the interview, the veracity of the details given by the petitioner in the application form has been verified and it was found that certain particulars given by the petitioner in respect of her income were not correct. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner was disqualified and that is why the petitioner was not awarded the dealership is the contention of the W.P.(C)No.7424/09 2 respondents. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner has her own explanation for the discrepancy alleged by the Company. But I am not going into that question now. After having been successful in the interview, when the petitioner is sought to be disqualified on the ground that particulars given in her application are not correct, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a chance to explain the discrepancy and defend her application. Admittedly, such an opportunity had not been given to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner detailing the grounds on which the petitioner is sought to be disqualified. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall file her objections to the same within the time stipulated in the notice. The 2nd respondent shall then offer an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass an order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Till then, the award of the dealership shall not be finalised. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(C)No.7424/09 3