IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6947 of 2009(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAHIRA BASHEER, W/O.K.M.ABDUL BASHEER, 'BAITHUL AYSHA', OPP.TAGORE COLLEGE, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD 671 123. BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682 036. 3. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682 036. 4. SINDHU JOSEPH, W/O.ANTO MATHEW, MANIKOMBEL VEEDU, AYYANKUNNU, P.O.KACHERIKADAU 670 706, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 6947 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an applicant for a LPG distributorship. The petitioner got the highest marks in the interview, despite which the petitioner has not been granted the dealership. The petitioner submitted Ext. P3 complaint in this regard. By P4 judgment, this Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider Ext. P3 complaint. That has been done and Ext. P5 order has been passed. Ext. P5 order is under challenge before me. The petitioner points out that Ext. P5 order is a cryptic order without any reasons whatsoever, which itself would go to show that the 3rd respondent had not applied his mind before passing that order. 2. The learned standing counsel would dispute this submission. He would submit that Ext. P5 order has been passed after taking into account all the contentions raised by the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Ext. P5 reads thus: “Reference is made to the personal hearing on 20-02-09 granted to you in compliance of the judgment in WP 729 of 2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. As explained to you, as per the guidelines on the selection of new distributorship and the Brochure marks are awarded to applicants based on the information given in the applications. Verification of the facts with respect to information furnished in the application is undertaken at the time of field investigation for the candidate ranked No. 1 in the empanelled list. In the light of the facts explained above, the selection of candidates and the merit panel have been done,by observing the laid down guidelines.” No discussion on materials is necessary to hold that the same does not contain any reasons whatsoever since it is totally non-speaking. W.P.C. No. 6947/09 -: 2 :- This is not what is expected of the 3rd respondent while passing orders of such nature, especially when the orders are passed as directed by this Court . Accordingly, Ext. P5 is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to pass a fresh order, after granting a fresh hearing of the petitioner, giving reasons as to why the petitioner cannot be granted the distributorship despite her having been obtained the highest marks in the interview. The dealership shall be awarded only after passing such an order. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.