IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 327 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.30345/2009 Dated 13/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ SINDU JOSEPH, W/O.ANTO MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS, MANIKOMPEL HOUSE, KACHERIKADAVU.P.O, KILIYANTHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PARAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR.P.O, KOCHI-682 036. 2. SAHIRA BASHEER, W/O.K.M.ABDUL BASHEER, BITHUL AYSHA OPP.TAGORE COLLEGE, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN Ag. CJ & C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.A. 327 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. J U D G M E N T Raman, Ag. CJ. Appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C) 30345/2009. She was an applicant for dealership in LPG as notified by the Indian Oil Corporation, the first respondent herein. Ext.P1 is the notification. Several persons applied. Finally a select list was prepared in which the appellant was Rank No.1. The party respondent was Rank No.2. Challenging the ranking, the second respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court. The appellant also preferred a writ petition before this Court for non issuance of the intent pursuant to the selection. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment directing the authorities to consider the appeal filed by the respondent after hearing the appellant herein also. Subsequently, on field inspection, it was found that the appellant's godown/office was situated in Kalanad Village which is beyond the urban Kasaragod area. LPG dealership is to be provided in a place located in urban area of Kasargod. Hence this mistake was rectified and accordingly, the second respondent was preferred. Challenging the same, the appellant preferred the writ WA. 327/2010 2 petition before this Court. Ext.P8 is the order by which it was found that the place where the appellant's godown is situated is away from Kasargod urban area. After going by Ext.P2 application submitted by the appellant, it was found that the place where her godown is situated is at Kalanadu, admittedly, a village area. Subsequently, the Tahsildar also conducted an enquiry and filed a report showing that the distance from the appellant's godown to Kasargod Tow n is 5.9 kms. Ext.P6 is the copy of the report of the Tahsildar. In view of the report of the Tahsildar, clearly showing the distance from the plot offered by the appellant to Kasargod Town the authorities took the view that the appellant's plot is not within the area, viz. Kasargod urban. The learned Single Judge, in such circumstances, did not find favour with the appellant and accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the contention that when going by the contents in Clause 13.2. of Ext.P1 it need only be in the area of operation (trading area) and the area of operation admittedly being 15 Km. radius, the land offered by the appellant would fall within the area of operation (trading area) and hence the disqualification of the appellant is illegal. It was also contended that when the first respondent has issued Ext.P9 letter of intent to another person in respect of another WA. 327/2010 3 urban location in Malappuram, pursuant to the same notification, a different standard prescribed in the case of the appellant is arbitrary. 3. The learned Single Judge considered the matter elaborately and found that the decision taken as per Ext.P8 is not liable to be interfered with. Ext.P8 is a decision rendered based on a finding on a question of fact. We do not think that in an intra court appeal such a decision be annulled or altered since only such of those decisions taken which are only totally unreasonable or arbitrary that this Court under 226 could interfere. The appeal fails. It is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE) C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). knc/-