IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 19408 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- JOSEPH.T, KANIYARAKATHU HOUSE, KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM, NEW DELHI. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE, G-9, ALIYAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI. 3. INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36 REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG FOR R1 ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2,3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2,3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2,3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2,3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No. 19408 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner responded to a notification issued by the respondents inviting application for a distributorship of LPG in Kuravilangad in Kottayam district. Petitioner is also required to submit a notarized affidavit along with the application. Respondents rejected the petitioner's application holding that the affidavit in Form A is not in correct form. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit pointing out that clause 19(b) of the notification contemplates that a declaration forming part of the application will have to be in a proper form. No applicant shall be permitted to cure the defect at a later point of time. A similar contention was urged in WPC No.33082 of 2008 and connected cases. After referring to the contentions regarding the action taken by the selection committee, I had permitted the petitioners to approach the W.P ( C) No. 19408 of 2009 2 appropriate authority of the Indian Oil Corporation with a request to permit them to cure the defect if otherwise permissible. Paragraph 6 of of the said judgment reads as follows: “6. After lengthy arguments were advanced, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they may be permitted to pursue a representation before the appropriate superior authority of the Corporation and that the contentions otherwise urged by them in the writ petitions be left open. I see no reason why such permission should not be granted. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of permitting each of the petitioners to file a representation before the appropriate authority of the Indian Oil Corporation raising such contentions as are available, including those contentions urged in these writ petitions. If such representations are filed within two weeks from today, the competent authority shall take a decision therein without any delay as such. The contentions urged by the petitioners in these writ petitions are left open.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar course of action be permitted to be adopted in the present case also. 4. In the circumstances, if the petitioner approaches the appropriate authority of the 2nd respondent W.P ( C) No. 19408 of 2009 3 within two weeks from today raising such contentions as are available including those contentions urged in the writ petition, the competent authority shall take a decision on his request within three weeks thereafter. Other contentions raised by the petitioner are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No. 19408 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No. 19408 of 2009 5