THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.26751 of 2008 ORDER: The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1st respondent herein issued a notification dated 31.09.2007 inviting applications for appointment of LPG Distributors at various places in several Districts. Isnapur of Medak District is one such locality. The petitioner, 4th respondent and several others submitted applications for that station. Respondents 1 to 3 appeared to have treated the application of the 4th respondent as valid. On coming to know the same, the petitioner submitted a representation/complaint dated 15.02.2008 and 16.03.2008 alleging that the site for show room chosen by the 4th respondent is not within the limits of Isnapur Village but outside that place. On a consideration of the same, the 3rd respondent sent a reply dated 30.09.2008 to the petitioner stating that his complaint is closed and that he may get in touch with the Regional Office at Hyderabad to obtain further information, as and when the verification process is completed. This writ petition is filed challenging the said communication. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit is filed. The parameters for selection of Distributors are mentioned. It is stated that the site shown by the 4th respondent was physically inspected and it was found to be within the limits of Muthangi Village about 200 meters from Isnapur X Road. According to them, the site shown by the 4th respondent is within the trading area of Isnapur and it accords with clause 13(2) of the selection criteria. The allegation made by the petitioner as regards the residence of the 4th respondent was also dealt with. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegation made by the petitioner. It is stated tat the same parameters apply for the location of godown as well as the show rooms and it is permissible for an applicant to select the sites within 15 kilo meters radius. The petitioner appeared as party-in-person. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, Sri M.Ravindranath Reddy, learned Standing Counsel advanced arguments and Sri K.Ravindra Kumar appeared for the 4th respondent. The applications submitted by the petitioner, 4th respondent and others for distributorship of L.P.G., Isnapur are under consideration. The evaluation has proceeded up to certain extent and in fact physical verifications were also caused. The petitioner raised an objection as regards the location chosen by the 4th respondent for show room. By placing reliance upon certain clauses contained in the application form, advertisement and the guidelines, the petitioner contends that though a godown can be located within the radius of 15 kilo meters, a show room must be within the location, meaning thereby the limits of revenue village notified by the Oil Company. To be precise, he contends that the show room must be within the limits of Isnapur Village, though a godowm can be anywhere within the marketing area. The impugned proceedings have only the effect of communicating the provisional view point and closure of the complaint at the level of the 3rd respondent. The issue was not given finality. As a matter of fact, the 3rd respondent categorically stated that the petitioner can be in touch with the Regional Office to obtain further information. There is some concern for the petitioner even at this stage. The reason is that the clauses contained in the guidelines on the one hand and the application on the other are not consistent with each other. A perusal of the relevant clauses in the application form give an impression that the show room must be established in the “location”, whereas a godown can be anywhere within the marketing area. This dichotomy appears to have been deviated by the respondents 1 to 3 as is evident from the tenor of their counter affidavits. Since no final decision has emerged as yet, this Court does not intend to express any definite opinion on these aspects. Ultimately, it is for respondents 1 to 3 to interpret the relevant clauses in the application and guidelines and arrive at a conclusion. The petitioner can certainly put forward his contention. Respondents 1 to 3 are under obligation to take into account, the points urged by the petitioner before a final decision is taken. If necessary an opportunity of personal hearing shall be given not only to the petitioner and 4th respondent but also to others, so that further complications would not arise. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that respondents 1 to 3 shall take into account, the objections raised by the petitioner as regards selection of L.P.G. Distributor for Isnapur Village in pursuance of the notification dated 31.09.2007, before a final decision is taken. They shall also give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, if the situation warrants. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 03.12.2009 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.26751 of 2008 Date: 03.12.2009 JSU