IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 12290 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEEPTHI.P, W/O. MR. SREENATH.P.K, SREEPADAM, AYANCHERI.P.O, VADAKARA - 673 544. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMTIED, L.P.G REGIONAL OFFICE, BALA VILLAGE VIA KATIPALLA, MANGALORE - 575 030. 3. THE ZONAL MANAGER - L.P.G, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, NATARAJAN BUILDING, IV FLOOR, P.B. NO. 3045 GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 008. BY ADV. SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 12290 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th April, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the 2nd respondent in compliance with Ext. P6 judgment. The matter relates to award of LPG dealership. The petitioner scored the highest marks. But the petitioner was not given the dealership. In the above circumstances the petitioner approached this Court and by Ext. P6 judgment, I directed as follows: “4. The petitioner has her own explanation for the discrepancy alleged by the Company. But I am not going into that question now. After having been successful in the interview, when the petitioner is sought to be disqualified on the ground that particulars given in her application are not correct, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a chance to explain the discrepancy and defend her application. Admittedly, such an opportunity had not been given to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 2nd respondent shall issue a notice to the petitioner detailing the grounds on which the petitioner is sought to be disqualified. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner shall file her objections to the same within the time stipulated in the notice. The 2nd respondent shall then offer an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass an order, which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Till then, the award of the dealership shall not be finalised.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that without following the procedure as directed in Ext. P6 judgment, without even issuing a notice, Ext. P7 order has been passed rejecting all the contentions of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext. P7 is liable to be quashed. 3. I have heard the standing counsel for the respondents. Standing counsel could not dispute the contention of the petitioner that before issuing Ext. P7 order, no notice had been issued to the W.P.C. No. 12290/09 -: 2 :- petitioner as directed in Ext. P6. 4. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: Ext. P7 shall be treated as a notice as contemplated by Ext. P6 judgment. The petitioner shall submit her objections to the same within two weeks. The 2nd respondent shall thereafter hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing with all the contentions of the petitioner, expeditiously. The award of dealership shall not be finalised until the order passed pursuant thereto is communicated to the petitioner. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.