IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11220 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.P.NASEER,S/O.MOIDEENHAJI.B, AGED 32 YEARS,SULAIKHA MANZIL,PUTHIYATHERU, CHIRAKKAL PO, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEYM CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, BALA VILLAGE, KATIPALLA,MANGALORE- 575 030. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN BUILDING, GABDHI IRVIN ROAD, PO BOX NO.3045, EGMORE, CHANNAI- 600 080. 4. ABDUL BASHEER.P.M, S/O.P.ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 38,RESIDING AT PALLIPUZHA HOUSE, POST PALLIKKARA, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT - 671 316. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 11220 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner filed an application for LPG distributorship before the 1st respondent. In the rank list prepared, the petitioner was ranked as third. According to the petitioner, the first and second rank holders have declined to accept the distributorship and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded distributorship. He also submits that the 4th respondent to whom the distributorship is awarded is ineligible because he had withdrawn amounts from the bank account, which were shown as his eligibility for being considered for distributorship. 2. All these specific averments have been denied by respondents 1 to 3 in their statement. They have specifically stated that the 4th respondent is the second ranked person and that the allegation that he withdrew amounts from the bank is not supported by any evidence. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the contentions in the statement filed by respondents 1 to 3, particularly the statements that the 4th respondent who is second ranked holder is eligible and that the allegation that he withdrew amounts from the w.p.c.11220/10 2 bank, are not substantiated by any evidence are in anyway incorrect. In fact the petitioner has not filed any reply to the statement also. Admittedly, the 4th respondent is the second rank holder. The petitioner is only the 3rd rank holder and insofar as the petitioner could not satisfy this Court that the second rank holder is ineligible for any reason, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the award of distributorship to the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge