IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2229 of 2008 ----- --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.23607/2008 Dated 30/09/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SMT. AMMINI K.J., W/O. K.Y. MATHAI, KUNJUVEETIKUDI HOUSE, ARACKAPADY, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAER, COHCIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 2. CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. 4. VARGHESE V, THURUTHIYIL HOUSE, ALLAPPARA P.O., PIN - 683 553 BY ADV.SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR ADV.SRI.K. JOHN MATHAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2229 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant had applied for allotment of a petrol retail outlet at Allapra in Ernakulam District under the Kisan Seva Kendra Scheme, in response to a notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation (2) According to the appellant, she was eligible to be considered for selection as a dealer since she possessed all the requisite qualifications specified in the notification. However, she was not even invited for the interview and to her dismay, she came to know that respondent No.4 had been given the dealership. (3) It was at that stage that the appellant had filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a declaration that the interview conducted by respondents 1 to 3 and the consequent selection of respondent No.4 as dealer in violation of Ext.P6 Guidelines was illegal. She also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash selection of respondent No.4. She also made a further prayer for issuance of a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to conduct a “re-interview” for selection of a dealer at Allapra. 2 W.A.NO.2229/08 (4) The learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions of the parties dismissed the writ petition holding that the materials placed before him clearly revealed that the appellant had been issued a call letter requesting her to appear for the interview and that the delay of nearly eight months in preferring the writ petition would disentitle her to get any relief. (5) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that she had not been served with a call letter to appear for the interview. Learned counsel points out that admittedly the call letter was not sent by registered post. Even according to the Corporation, it was sent to the appellant under certificate of posting. He further points out that the appellant had submitted Ext.P2 complaint before the Corporation on January 05, 2008 since she had received reliable information that the Corporation had held an interview for some of the applicants. She had received Ext.P3 reply on January 25, 2008 informing her that a call letter had been sent to her on November 19, 2007. Though the appellant had yet again submitted Ext.P5 representation in this regard, she did not receive any reply . It is in that circumstance, that the appellant was constrained to approach this Court. He would further contend that the appellant was in all respects eligible to be considered for selection. She was denied an opportunity to attend the interview. If only she had been interviewed, she could have convinced the interview board that she was eligible for 3 W.A.NO.2229/08 selection and grant of dealership. (6) We have carefully perused the materials available on record. As rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, the records produced by the Corporation would show that the postal authorities had informed that call letter had been delivered to the addressees including the appellant shown in the list. It is true that the call letter was not sent by registered post. But, according to the Corporation, the normal practice is to send call letters to the applicants under certificate of posting. (7) In this context, the learned Judge noticed that the appellant had come to know about the interview in January 2008. Admittedly she had received Ext.P3 reply in January, 2008. Ext.P4 communication from the postal authorities was received by her in February, 2008. But, the writ petition was filed only in August, 2008. The delay of more than 7 months had apparently persuaded the learned Single Judge to decline any relief to the petitioner. In the peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not find any material irregularity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Judge. (8) It is the admitted position that respondent No.4 was selected pursuant to the interview held by the Corporation. She was issued with a letter of intent in January 8, 2008. The appellant has no case that respondent No.4 is in any way disqualified or disentitled to get the dealership or that the 4 W.A.NO.2229/08 Corporation had shown any favoritism to respondent No.4. In that view of the matter also, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE cl