IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 30345 of 2009(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SINDHU JOSEPH, MANIKOMPEL HOUSE, KACHERIKADAVU. P.O., KILIYANTHARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.K.SATHEESH, MR.THOMAS T.KURICHIYANI. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR.P.O., KOCHI-682 036. 2. SAHIRA BASHEER, W/O. K.M. ABDUL BASHEER, BAITHUL AYSHA OPP. TAGORE COLLEGE, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD. R1 BY ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR , MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.P.GOPINATH, MR.V.J.ANAND . THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 30345 of 2009-K - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010. JUDGMENT The challenge is against Ext.P8 by which the petitioner's selection for appointment as LPG Distributor, stands cancelled, finding that she is ineligible and disqualified for being considered for appointment. 2. The circumstances leading to the issue are the following: The notification in question was issued as per Ext.P1 dated 27.12.2007 and applications were invited for LPG Distributorship in Kasaragod (Urban) under Open (Woman) category. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application submitted by the petitioner. The land offered is situated at Kalanad, Maniamkode. An interview was conducted in which the petitioner secured the highest marks, whereas the second respondent secured only second rank. It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation inspected the site on 11.2.2009 and they were fully satisfied with the location of show room and godown. 3. The second respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.729/2009 after filing a complaint before the grievance redressal authority. This Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass wpc30345 /2009 2 orders on the said complaint. It was rejected as per Ext.P4. The said order was challenged by the second respondent before this Court in W.P.(C) No.6947/2009 and this Court directed the first respondent to consider the appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 4. Meanwhile, on the request made by the first respondent, the Tahsildar also filed a report which shows that the distance from the plot offered by the petitioner and Kasaragod town is 5.9 kms. and Ext.P6 is the copy of the report. It is after hearing parties, Ext.P8 order has been passed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding in Ext.P8 cannot be justified. The land offered is in a convenient locality and it is on the side of the Highway and the maximum distance will be only 6 kms. from the town. Therefore, the petitioner has satisfied all the requirements as per clause 13.2 of Ext.P1 notification. It is further submitted that the area of operation being 15 kms., there cannot be any objection with regard to the acceptance of the site offered by the petitioner. Reliance is also placed on Ext.P9 order passed in a similar case by the first respondent, although in another district. 6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the order passed. The crucial issue is whether the location offered by the wpc30345 /2009 3 petitioner could have been accepted by the first respondent. It is clear from the averments in the counter affidavit that after completion of the field verification it was found that the show room proposed by the petitioner was not in the location advertised, viz. Kasaragod Urban. The location offered was situated in Kalanad Panchayat and it is beyond the urban area and municipal limits of Kasaragod. According to the first respondent, the show room should have been located within the notified location and therefore it cannot be accepted. 7. The main aspect is whether the argument raised by the petitioner that the location is convenient, could be accepted. It is clear from the pleadings of the petitioner also that it is at a distance of 5.9 kms. from Kasaragod town. The notified locality is Kasaragod (Urban), i.e. within the municipal limits. The location offered by the petitioner is in a panchayat area. Even though an argument was raised that it need be located within a distance of 15 kms., as explained by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, the godown can be situated within a distance of 15 kms., but the show room is liable to be located within the location advertised for. That alone will enable the customers to have access for the purpose of booking and other matters 8. The locality where the show room is to be situated should be at a wpc30345 /2009 4 place convenient to the customers. Here, the distance is by about 5.9 kms. It cannot therefore be stated that the view taken by the first respondent is on a misreading of the factual aspects. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that all the relevant aspects were considered and it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at is faulty. In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/