IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 29TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24745 of 2011(P) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- CHITRA A.P., PARAPPINIYIL HOUSE, P.O.THUVVUR, (VIA) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.P.V.ASHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6 CURRIM BHOY ROAD, BELLAD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400001. 2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, LPG BOTTLING PLANT, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI - 682302. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, SPEED POST CENTRE, ERNAKULAM - 682011. 4. POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. S. SUJIN. SC., BPL. R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 24745/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN HINDU DAILY DATED 30/07/2011. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF PETITIONER ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS. P3: COPY OF LETTER NO.COC:REG:LPG:2011 DATED 02/09/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE POST OFFICE ON 29/08/2011 AND COPY OF BOTH SIDES OF THE ENVELOPE IN WHICH THE APPLICATION WAS SENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE MOVEMENT PARTICULARS OF POSTAL ARTICLE SENT BY PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).24745/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 2. Ext.P1 is a notification issued by the Petroleum Companies including the first respondent, inviting applications for appointment of LPG Distributors. In response to Ext.P1, petitioner submitted an application for appointment as LPG Distributor at Melattur in Malappuram District. The last date specified for receipt of application was 31.8.2011. 3. Though the petitioner sent her application by speed post on 29.8.2011, due to the fact that 31.8.2011 was a postal holiday, the application was delivered at the office of the second respondent only on 1.9.2011. Stating that the application was received belatedly and relying on clause 9(e) of the advertisement, respondent has declined to entertain the application and rejected it by Ext.P3 communication. It is therefore, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 W.P.(C).24745/11 2 returning the application for its belated receipt and for directing to accept the application and consider the same. 3. The stand taken by the respondent is that in view of clause 9 (e), application received after the cut of date for any reason, including that of postal delay, is liable to be rejected. It is also stated that 31.8.2011 was a working day for the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner could have delivered the application at least on the last date. 4. Admittedly, 31.8.2011 was a public holiday including for Postal Department and therefore any postal article could not have been delivered on 31.8.2011. It was therefore that the application of the petitioner was delivered to the second respondent on 1.9.2011. Since the last date specified in the notification happened to be a public holiday, for all purposes, the last date specified should be treated as the next working day, ie, 1.9.2011. If such a stand is adopted, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of belated receipt. The fact that for the second respondent, 31.8.2011 was a working day W.P.(C).24745/11 3 also cannot make any difference. Even if it is so, one cannot expect applicants from distant places to deliver the applications in person to the second respondent on 31.8.2011, particularly in a situation where there was no such indication in Ext.P1 notification. In such circumstances I am inclined to think that the application of the petitioner is liable to be entertained. For these reasons, I quash Ext.P3 and direct that it will be open to the petitioner to deliver the unopened cover containing her application to her. It is directed that if the cover is returned to the second respondent within seven days from today along with a copy of the judgment, same will be accepted and the application will be entertained and petitioner's candidature will also be considered in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs