IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 28TH APRIL 2009 / 8TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12887 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ASNI.P.P. D/O. BASHEER, PAZHAYAPUTHEN VEETTIL,CITY VILLA, NIRAMARUTHUR P.O TIRUR TALUK, MLAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.SAJU.S.A RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS SENIOR LPG MANAGER, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PNMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. 2. SENIOR LPG MANAGER, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682036. BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12887 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 28th April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is that she was an applicant for obtaining LPG dealership to be given by the first respondent. Even though she had complied with all the requisite formalities including the deposit amount of Rs.18 lakhs, to be retained in her bank account, subsequently a portion of the said amount was withdrawn from the bank, in view of some unforeseen circumstances and without actually knowing the extent of the deposit to be retained, but for substantiating that she was financially capable of raising the said amount. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner is not being considered by the respondents since the petitioner did not maintain the deposit amount of Rs.18 lakhs in her bank account for three W.P.(C) No.12887 OF 2009 2 months. It is the case of the petitioner that immediately on coming to know about the above defect, the petitioner has effected deposit of the deficit amount and hence prays that her application for LPG dealership is liable to be considered and proceeded with. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was already selected and that she was disqualified only because of withdrawal of a portion of the amount from the deposit. In view of the subsequent developments including the curing of the defect by effecting the deposit which was in deficit, the learned standing counsel submits that Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner can be considered in accordance with law. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as W.P.(C) No.12887 OF 2009 3 expeditiously as possible, and, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. nj.