IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 22281 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MANZOOR BABU, S/O.VEERAN KUTTY, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAIPPALLY HOUSE, P.O.KUTTIPPURAM-679 471. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA EAST) MUMBAI, 400 051, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, AREA OFFICE : PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1-2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1-2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1-2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1-2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1-2 SRI.V.J.ANAND FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.22281 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 13th August,2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by the 1st respondent for the award of LPG Distributorship at Pulamanthole and Valancherry in Malappuram District. Petitioner was invited for an interview at Pulamanthole. In so far as Valancherry is concerned, as evidenced by Ex.P2, respondents have found the petitioner to be not eligible on the premise that the affidavit filed by him is not in proper form. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. Though several contentions have been taken up by the petitioner in this writ petition at this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a permission to approach the competent authority of the 1st respondent with a representation, seeking appropriate permission to amend the affidavit to make it proper form. Similar issue was considered by me in WPC No.32675 of 2008. Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the judgment read as follows: W.P ( C) No.22281 of 2009 2 “4. On the other hand, it is submitted by the respondents that all that the respondents did was to scrutinise the applications to find whether they are in order as is required under Clauses 19 (b) and (c) of the notification. There is no residuary provision enabling the committee to permit any person, who has submitted a defective application to cure the defects. In the absence of such a provision, it would have been an improper exercise on the part of the respondents to allow the petitioners to cure the defects. 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.” 3. I heard Sri.Millu Dandapani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.K. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Similar course of action can be adopted in the said case also. Accordingly if the petitioner files a representation before the competent authority of the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from today, the said authority shall deal with the petitioner’s application W.P ( C) No.22281 of 2009 3 and take a decision within three weeks thereafter. All other contentions of the petitioner are left open. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.22281 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.22281 of 2009 5