IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5762 of 2009(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANNAKUTTY, C/O.ULAHANNAN K.V., KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, ELAGAVAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, TRIVANDRUM LPG PLANT, PB.NO.6, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. V.SANKARA NARAYANAN, TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KAZHAKUTTAM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. JINDHU, D/O.JANARDHANAN, TC 8/1945 B.C.COTTAGE, MULLASSERY LANE, ELIPODE, THIRUMALA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.5762 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner submitted an application for appointment as LPG dealer in Vattiyurkavu in Thiruvananthapuram District. Her application was accepted and she was interviewed along with other applicants. In the interview the petitioner secured the highest marks. However, the petitioner was not awarded dealership. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibits P3 to P5 and the order awarding dealership to the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) declare that the petitioner is eligible and qualified to be appointed as Retail Outlet Dealer of LPG products at Vattiyoorkavu;” 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that on subsequent verification of the details furnished by the petitioner in her application, the details regarding her bank balance were found to be incorrect, as a result of which, she became disqualified for dealership. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioner was not awarded the dealership. The learned Standing Counsel further submits that on verification, the next two rank holders were also found to be disqualified and therefore, respondents 1 and 2 decided to renotify the dealership inviting fresh 2 applications. The learned Standing Counsel while admitting that no written communication in this regard had been issued to the petitioner, submits that she had been orally informed about the disqualification. The counsel for the petitioner denies such oral information regarding disqualification. The counsel for the petitioner submits that after awarding her the highest marks in the interview, when she is sought to be disqualified on the ground that any information supplied in the application form is wrong, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to explain the same. Since the same had not been afforded to the petitioner, the action of respondents 1 and 2 suffers from the vice of denial of principles of natural justice is the contention raised. 3. I have heard considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. After hearing, I am satisfied that the action of respondents 1 and 2 suffers from the vice of denial of natural justice. It is not disputed before me that before deciding to disqualify the petitioner, the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. The contention of the Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner was orally informed about the disqualification is denied by the petitioner. In such circumstances, principles of natural justice demand that the petitioner be given an opportunity to explain the alleged disqualification. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with 3 the following directions: Before finally disqualifying the petitioner, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard and a reasoned order dealing with the contentions of the petitioner in that regard shall be communicated to the petitioner. Without going through the above procedure, no fresh application shall be invited. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.5762 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 O R D E R Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that although the petitioner obtained higher marks, she was disqualified on the ground that certain information supplied by the petitioner in the application, on verification, were found to be incorrect. The Standing Counsel shall get instructions as to whether the petitioner has been afforded an opportunity to explain the allegation against her. Post after a week. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE 5