IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16090 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LILLY.M.D., MANIKKANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682315. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682030. 4. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 6. K.K.RAJASREE, MECHERIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN 682315. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/8/2011, THE COURT ON 19/9/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16090 OF 2011 EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PAPER NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 19.2.2011. EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TELEGRAM ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURIST ORGANIZATION DATED 1.6.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL PEOPLE DATED 1.6.2011. EXT.P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT PRESIDENT OF THE AMBALLUR DATED 30.5.2011. EXT.P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 27.4.2011. EXT.P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 18.5.2011. EXT.P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 7.6.2011. EXT.P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.103/95 DATED 7.1.1995 OF THE MULANTHURUTHY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 24.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK ANNEXURE R2(b) TRUE COPY OF FIELD VERIFICATION REPORT DATED 28.5.2011. EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL. EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND OFFERED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE MARKS AWARDED TO THE EPTITIONER AND THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN EVALUATION DATED 11.5.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the decision taken by respondents 1 and 2 to entertain the application submitted by the 6th respondent for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur in Ernakulam District. The brief facts of the case are as follows. 2. By Ext.P2 notification published in the Mathrubhoomi daily dated 19.2.2011, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at various locations in the State of Kerala including Amballur in Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. The Kisan Seva Kendra dealership at Amballur in Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District was reserved for woman. Pursuant to Ext.P2 notification the petitioner and the 6th respondent submitted applications and they were called to appear for the interview held on 11.5.2011. Ext.P7 letter dated 27.4.2011 is the letter sent in that regard to the petitioner. The petitioner and the 6th W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:2:- respondent appeared for the interview. Prior to the interview, the land offered by both the applicants was inspected on 18.4.2011. On coming to know that the 6th respondent, who does not own land or reside in the locality known as Amballur and is a resident of Kanjiramattom, has been awarded the first rank, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 representation dated 18.5.2011 before the second respondent objecting to the candidature of the 6th respondent and requesting him to reject the application of the 6th respondent and to award the dealership to her. By Ext.P9 letter dated 7.6.2011 the Indian Oil Corporation informed the petitioner that the application submitted by the 6th respondent was valid and she was eligible to appear for the interview. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 and seeking the following reliefs:- i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to issue of Ext.P9 and quash the same. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order or direction directing respondents 1 & 2 to grant dealership of the petrol pump set apart to be installed the same at Amballur Sl.No.82 in Ext.P2 to the petitioner. 3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that while W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:3:- she is a resident of Amballur and owns land in the locality known as Amballur situated in Amballur Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, the 6th respondent does not reside or own land at Amballur and has offered land situated at Kanjiramattom. It is also stated that the land offered by the 6th respondent is not situated in the locality known as Amballur, but one kilometer away from the southern end of the locality known as Amballur and therefore, the 6th respondent was ineligible to apply for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur. The petitioner states that as she was the only eligible applicant satisfying the eligibility criteria stipulated in the notification, she is entitled to be appointed as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur. 4. The first respondent has filed a statement dated 6.7.2011. The fact that the petitioner was eligible to apply pursuant to Ext.P2 notification for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur is not in dispute. The fact that the petitioner is a resident of the locality known as Amballur and owns land in Amballur is also not in dispute. The stand taken by the first respondent is that there is no requirement in the notification inviting applications that the applicant has to reside in the village where the outlet is to be located; the only requirement is that the W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:4:- applicant should be a resident of the district in which the locality where the outlet is to be established, is situated. On that basis it is contended that the 6th respondent, who is a resident of Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District was eligible to apply. As regards the land offered by the 6th respondent, it is contended that after the interview held on 11.5.2011, the 6th respondent was awarded 88.32 marks and the petitioner was awarded 71.43 marks and a merit list was published on 11.5.2011 itself. The statement proceeds to state that upon receipt of Ext.P8 representation from the petitioner a field verification was conducted and on field verification it was found that the land offered by the 6th respondent is situated in Amballur Village. The first respondent has stated that as the land offered by the 6th respondent is situated in Amballur Village, she is eligible to apply for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur and that a letter of intent has also been issued to the 6th respondent. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit wherein it is stated that the notification was not in relation to Amballur Village, but the locality known as Amballur and that as the land offered by the 6th respondent is not situated in the notified locality, she is ineligible to be considered for award of the dealership. Besides the W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:5:- statement dated 6.7.2011, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit dated 1.8.2011 wherein also the contention raised is that as the land offered by the 6th respondent is situated within Amballur Village, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the 6th respondent is ineligible to apply for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur. Respondents 1 and 2 have also stated that the land offered by the petitioner lies 2 metres below the road level while the land offered by the 6th respondent is only 0.30 metres below the road level. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 3.8.2011 and produced along with it the document of title relating to the land offered by her for establishing the retail outlet. 5. I heard Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Though the 6th respondent has been served, she has not entered appearance. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to Ext.P1 notice and Ext.P2 notification published in the Mathrubhoomi daily dated 19.2.2011 that the proposal was to establish a Kisan Seva Kendra dealership at Amballur in Ernakulam District and therefore only those applicants who have W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:6:- offered lands situated in the locality known as Amballur are eligible to apply. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with reference to the description of the various localities specified in Ext.P2 notification that except in cases where the locality is mentioned as situated on a stretch of road, namely Ponkavu - Pathanamthitta road (item 41), Muringoor - Ezhattumukham road (item 132), Kecheri - Akkikkavu road (item 141), Kottiyur - Ambayathodu road (item 162) etc. in all other cases the name of the locality alone is specified and therefore, the outlet can be established only in the locality specified in the notification and not away from the locality. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have no case that the land offered by the 6th respondent is situate in the locality known as Amballur though it is situate in Amballur Village and therefore, the 6th respondent was ineligible to be considered for appointment. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation contended that the only requirement of the notification is that the applicant should reside in the district where the locality is situate and that as the 6th respondent is admittedly a resident of Ernakulam District, she was eligible to apply. As regards the locality, the learned counsel for the Indian Oil W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:7:- Corporation contended that it is open to the Indian Oil Corporation to decide on the site of the outlet and as long as the proposed outlet falls within Amballur Village, the petitioner cannot have any reason to be aggrieved. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. By Ext.P1 notice the Indian Oil Corporation invited applications for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur, Chendamangalam, Cheranellur, Kongorpilly, Mallyankara, South Maradi and Vattappara in Ernakulam District. These localities are item Nos.82, 85, 86, 92, 93, 100 and 103 in Ext.P2 notification. From Ext.P1 notice and Ext.P2 notification it is evident that the locality known as Amballur in Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District was the locality identified for the establishment of a Kisan Seva Kendra retail outlet. From the opening paragraph of Ext.P2 notification it is evident that the proposal is to establish retail outlets at the localities mentioned therein. The fact that the petitioner admittedly owns land in the locality known as Amballur is not in dispute. The dispute raised by the petitioner is that the land offered by the 6th respondent is not at Amballur but at the locality known as Kanjiramattom, which also falls within Amballur Village W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:8:- and as the land offered by the 6th respondent is not at Amballur, but in a different locality, though in the same village, she was ineligible to be considered for award of the dealership. In paragraph 1 of the brochure published by the Indian Oil Corporation on 11.4.2011 regarding selection of Kisan Seva Kendra dealers it is stipulated as follows:- “1. IDENTIFICATION OF LOCATIONS. Locations for setting up Petrol/Diesel rural retail outlet dealerships hereinafter referred as Kisan Seva Kendra or KSK, are identified by Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) after carrying out required feasibility study and based on commercial considerations. For appointing dealers for retail outlets the following transparent procedure is followed by IOCL.” Paragraph 14(a) of the brochure, which deals with evaluation of the site offered by the applicant reads as follows:- “14. APPLICANTS OFFERING SUITABLE LAND. Evaluation of the site offered by the applicants: (a) Owned Land. Since availability of suitable land for setting up of retail outlets at the advertised location is the essence of the project, the land offered by the applicant either owned or having a firm offer, will be evaluated for W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:9:- marks under the Head “Land and Infrastructure”, subject to technical and commercial suitability of land as decided by IOCL. The land and details offered along with the application alone will be considered for this purpose and the applicant will not be given the opportunity to offer any other land subsequently. For this purpose, the land owned by the 'family unit' will also be considered as belonging to the applicant subject to producing the consent on notorized affidavit signed by all concerned member/s of the 'family unit'. The definition of 'family unit' will be as per para 6 above.” 7. The opening sentences of the above quoted paragraphs make it evident that the land offered should be at the advertised location. It may either belong to the applicant or a member of his family or it may even be one taken on lease by the applicant. However, the fact remains that the land offered should be at the advertised location. In the instant case the respondents have no case that the land offered by the 6th respondent is in the advertised location, namely, Amballur. The stand taken by the respondents is that the location can be shifted according to their discretion to any place within the village, namely, Amballur Village W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:10:- of Kanayannur Taluk. I am afraid the said stand cannot be countenanced. If as claimed by the respondents, persons owning lands anywhere in Amballur Village could have applied, they should have stated so in the notification inviting applications, namely Exts.P1 and P2. If this had been made known to the public, many others owning lands in Amballur Village may have applied. Many persons, who own lands in Amballur Village may not have applied for the reason that their land is not situated in the locality known as Amballur, though it is situated in Amballur Village, but far away from the locality notified by the respondents. In my opinion the respondents, who had notified the locality where the retail outlet is to be set up as Amballur in Kanayannur Taluk of Ernakulam District, cannot be heard to contend that by that locality they meant Amballur Village. Paragraph 2 of Ext.P2 notification sets out the name of the locality (Amballur) and not the name of the Village. As a matter of fact, the name of the village is not at all mentioned in the notification. Reference is only to the Taluk and the District. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that the 6th respondent, who has admittedly not offered land situate in the locality known as Amballur, was ineligible to apply. It is evident from the conduct of the respondents and the W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:11:- tone and tenor of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2 that for extraneous considerations the terms of the notification were watered down and an applicant who did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, namely availability of land in the notified locality, was chosen for appointment. Though the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the land offered by the petitioner lies 2 meters below the road level, in Ext.R1(a) report, the Land Evaluation Committee has stated that the site offered by the petitioner is a good site. In other words, the Land Evaluation Committee had found the land offered by the petitioner suitable for the purpose. In this context it is also relevant to note that as against 34.65 marks awarded to the 6th respondent under the heading “capability to provide land and infrastructure facilities”, the petitioner was awarded 33.95 marks. The respondents have no case that the petitioner is in any way ineligible to be considered for appointment as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer. As the land offered by the 6th respondent was not in the notified locality, the petitioner is in my opinion, entitled to succeed. I accordingly allow the writ petition and declare that the 6th respondent, who has not offered land in the locality known as Amballur, is ineligible to be appointed as Kisan Seva Kendra W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 -:12:- dealer at Amballur. Consequently I direct respondents 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner as Kisan Seva Kendra dealer at Amballur. Necessary steps in that regard shall be taken and finalised within two months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.16090 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 19th September, 2011