IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 23652 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ROLLY K.J., AGED 36 YEARS W/O.JOSE PAUL, JAPEES AVENUE, PAZHUVIL,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRIOTRY MANAGER LPG DIVISION, AMBALAMUKAL,KOCHI. 2. RAKHI SUNILKUMAR W/O.SUNIL KUMAR, KARUVANNUR P.O., THRISSUR DT 3. JOFFY P.J. MUTTIKKAL HOUSE, KALLETTINKARA, KALLETTINKARA P.O., THRISSUR DT. ADV SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.S.SUJIN (SC) FOR R1. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.23652/09 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER ADVERTISEMENT DATED 29.11.07 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO THE APPLICNTS FOR MAKING LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE EMPANELLED LIST OF CANDIDATE DATED 4.10.08. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 10.10.08 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)No. 30624/08 DATED 8.4.09 EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 16.6.09. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE additional ARGUMENT NOTE DATED 17.6.09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TERRITORY MANAGER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.09. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(A): TRUE PHOTOCPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED. EXT.R2(B): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REVISED RANK LIST. EXT.R2(C) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT (LOI) DATED 4.8.09. TRUE COPY P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 23652 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri. V.M.Krishnankumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S.Sujin, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri. N.Reghuraj, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. Though the third respondent has also been served, he has not chosen to enter appearance. 2. By a notification published in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 29.11.2007, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as LPG distributor at various places including Chazhoor in Thiruvananthapuram District. The last date prescribed for submission of applications was 31.1.2008. One of the stipulations in the notification inviting applications was that if the applicant is not the owner of the show room, he must produce a registered lease deed in his favour leasing out the show room to him for a minimum period of 15 years or a Notarized sale agreement. Yet W.P.(C) No. 23652/09 2 another stipulation was that the proposed godown should be within a radius of 15 Km. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 applied for award of the distributorship. After an earlier round of litigation, the interview was held and a rank list was prepared in which the second respondent was ranked first and the third respondent was ranked second. 3. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging the selection of respondents 2 and 3. After the second respondent was selected, a letter of intend was also issued to her. The petitioner contends that the land offered by the second respondent for erecting a godown for storing LPG cylinders is situated beyond a distance of 15 Kms from the show room offered by her and therefore she is not eligible to be appointed. It is also contended that the second respondent does own a show room at Chazhoor and that either notarized or registered lease deed was also not produced by her. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and produced along with it a copy of the registered lease deed executed by the lessor in her favour leasing out to her a parcel of land together with the building therein for a period of 15 years. The W.P.(C) No. 23652/09 3 lease deed was executed on 24.1.2008 and was registered on 25.1.2008 in the Sub Registrar's Office, Anthikkad. The second respondent has in categorical terms also averred that the land where the godown is situated, is only 11.5 Kms away from the show room offered by her. Though the counter affidavit was filed on 25.8.2009, till date the petitioner has not chosen to deny the said facts. 4. It is evident from the registered lease deed produced by the second respondent which was executed on 24.1.2008 and registered on 25.1.2008, that she is in possession of a parcel of land together with a building therein which is available to be used as a show room. I, therefore find no merit in the contention of the petitioner that the second respondent does not have a show room and that she had not produced a lease deed either registered or notarized. As regards the distance from the show room to the premises of the godown offered by the second respondent, the petitioner has not been able to show that the statement made by the second respondent that the godown is situated only 11.5. Km away from the show room is erroneous or incorrect. In the absence of W.P.(C) No. 23652/09 4 any cogent material to disprove the claim made by the second respondent, the said contention also fails. These and other aspects have been adverted to by the official respondents in Ex.P8 order, which is impugned in this writ petition. I, accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE vps