IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25224 of 2008(C) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- K.G. KUMARAGURUVARAN, KUZHIVELIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PARAKKARA P.O., THATTAYIL PATHANAMTHITTA, ADOOR ROAD, KERALA - 691 525. BY ADV. SRI.T.SANJAY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. AREA MARKETING MANAGER (KERALA) BHARAT PETORLEUM CORPORATION LTD., AMM'S OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, PETRONET CCK LTD, IRUMPANAM - 682 309. ERNAKULAM. 2. SENIOR MANAGER MARKETING,(COCHIN) BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., AMM'S OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, PETRONET CCK LTD., IRUMPANAM - 682 309, ERNAKULAM. 3. HARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD; REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AMM'S OFFICE,1ST FLOOR, PETRONET CCK LTD., IRUMPANAM - 682 309 ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ,SC ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 25224/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS ON 18/2/05. P2 COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE SITE FOR THE OUTLET. P3 COPY OF THE INTERVIEW LETTER DATED 25/7/05. P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6/11/08 IN WPC.32783/07. P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/1/08 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS. P5(A) COPY OF THE ORDER OF CANCELLLATION OF ALLOTMENT. P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/6/08 IN WPC.4655/08. P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/7/08 AND DOCUMENTS SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/7/08 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE PROPOSED SITE OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER. P10 COPY OF THE GUIDELINES OF THE RESPONDENTS FOR ALLOTMENT PETROLEUM OUTLET TO DEALERS. P11 COPY OF THE CHART DEPICTING THE MARKS ALLOTED TO THE PETITIONER AND THE MARKS WHICH OUGHT TO BE ALLOTED. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF TH PETITIONER'S MARK LIST. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 25224 of 2008 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a 100% disabled Jawan of the Indian Army, who had to quit service on account of the injuries sustained. 2. It is stated that, in pursuance to Ext.P1 notification, petitioner applied for appointment as dealer of the respondent at Adoor - Pathanamthitta road, a dealership reserved in favour of the Ex-servicemen. Eventually, the petitioner was selected and despite the selection, he was not allotted the dealership. Complaining of the above, he filed W.P.(C) No.32783/2007 before this Court, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment, directing consideration of his representation. 3. However, by Ext.P5, he was informed that his selection was cancelled on the ground that the result intimated to him was vitiated on account of a mistake of fact. That decision of the respondent was again challenged before W.P.(C) No.25224/2008 : 2 : this Court in W.P.(C) No.4655/2008, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, directing that the matter shall be reconsidered after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It was clarified that it will be open to the petitioner to produce documents in support of his contentions and the respondents were also directed to consider those documents while passing orders. 4. In pursuance to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, a meeting was fixed on 29-07-2008 and according to the petitioner, despite his physical disability, he appeared before the respondents. It is stated that he produced Ext.P7 series of documents but, however, the respondents refused to even look at those documents. It is stated that as a result of the above, petitioner had to return from the venue of the meeting and in order to put those documents on record, he sent Ext.P7 series of documents by speed post. However, Ext.P8 order was passed by the respondents on 29-07-2008 itself, on the basis that the petitioner had not produced any documents W.P.(C) No.25224/2008 : 3 : and that the selection of the petitioner is liable for cancellation. It is challenging Ext.P8, the writ petition is filed. 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, where it is alleged that, on 29-07-2008, the petitioner did not produce any documents as contended. However, specific case of the petitioner is that, despite his disability, he appeared before the Committee and produced all the documents, which are annexed to this writ petition as Ext.P7 series. The fact that the petitioner had those documents in his possession cannot be disputed. Therefore, on the ground of preponderance of probabilities, I am inclined to think that the petitioner, who had all the documents in his favour, would not have made use of the opportunity given by this Court and failed to produce the documents. Therefore, since Ext.P8 order has been passed on the basis that the documents were not produced by the petitioner, I think the matter needs reconsideration. 6. Accordingly, in order to enable the respondents to W.P.(C) No.25224/2008 : 4 : reconsider the claim of the petitioner as above, I quash Ext.P8 and direct the competent among the respondents to consider the matter afresh, duly adverting to Ext.P7 series of documents and with notice to the petitioner, and pass orders in the manner as directed in Ext.P6 judgment referred to above. Orders in the matter shall be passed, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks The sentence, “ Therefore, on the ground of preponderance of probabilities, I am inclined to think that the petitioner, who had all the documents in his favour, would not have made use of the opportunity given by this Court and failed to produce the documents” occurring in the 5th paragraph of the judgment in W.P(C) No.25224/2008 dated 22-11-2010 is substituted by “ Therefore, on the ground of W.P.(C) No.25224/2008 : 5 : preponderance of probabilities, I am inclined to think that the petitioner, who had all the documents in his favour would have made use of the opportunity given by this Court and had produced the documents.” vide order dated 20-12-2010 in I.A.No.17379/2010. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)