IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31331 of 2009(J) ------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ---------------- 1. JYNA R.PRASAD, W/O.RAJENDRA PRASAD, EDAYILAMURIYIL, MANJANIKKARA, OMALLOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. SHAILAJ NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KOCHUPARAMBIL, KADAPRA, NIRANAM P.O., MANNAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY MR.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND GAS, SHASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-2. 2. THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARATH BHAVAN, 4 & 6, C.ROY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001. 3. THE TERRITORY MANAGER(LPG), BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KAZHAKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582. BY MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR R1 MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC, FOR R2 & R3 MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R3 MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, ADVOCATE, FOR R3. MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, ADVOCATE, FOR R3. MR.P.GOPINATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R3. MR.V.J.ANAND, ADVOCATE, FOR R3. MR.S.RAMU, ADVOCATE, FOR R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31331 OF 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are challenging Exhibit P5 communication whereby they have been informed that their candidature stands cancelled for violation of certain conditions. 2. The petitioners are respectively the managing partner and partner of a firm constituted for the purpose of doing business. The 2nd respondent invited as per advertisement dated 29.12.2007 application for award of domestic LPG distributorship in various places in Kerala including Pathanamthitta. The distributorship proposed in Pathanamthitta is in open category. They submitted an application on behalf of the firm and were invited for an interview at 10.30 a.m on 03.07.2009 as evidenced by Exhibit P2 communication. 3. The interview was conducted by the Distributor Selection Committee in terms of the norms prescribed by them. Exhibit P4 is the panel of candidates published by the said Selection W.P.(C) No.31331/2009 2 Committee wherein the petitioners are shown as third. Thereafter, field verification of candidates 1 and 2 was done and they were found not suitable. The petitioners were informed that the field verification of the petitioners will be done as candidates 1 and 2 were found not eligible. A field verification was accordingly conducted. Aggrieved by the delay in finalising the matter, they approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.28060 of 2009 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, they were issued Exhibit P5 communication. The said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to challenge Exhibit P5. The petitioners were aggrieved by Exhibit P5 whereby their candidature has been cancelled. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 5. Going by Exhibit P5, the following are the reasons for cancellation: “1. You have withdrawn amounts from your SB account no.519530869 (Indian Bank, Niranam Branch) on 04.02.08, 08.02.08 and 11.02.08 and the balance in your account was reduced to Rs.28,535/- as at close of 24.02.08. As such the balance of Rs.50,000/- as on the date of application has not been maintained W.P.(C) No.31331/2009 3 by you for a period of three months from the date of application as per item no.14.2 in the application format prescribed in the advertisement. 2. FD no.67053016364 for Rs.5 lakhs held by you with SBT, Nariyapuram is dated 29.01.08 (initial investment) and not on the date of advertisement as per the Selection guidelines. It is stated in Exhibit P5 that the petitioners have not complied with certain conditions. 6. Attacking the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that cancellation of the candidature of the petitioners is bad. It is pointed out that the assumed violation of the conditions was not a ground to cancel the candidature. 7. Going by Item No.14.2 of the application, the amount mentioned in the Bank should remain in the Bank for a minimum period of three months from the date of application or the interview whichever is earlier. What is alleged in Exhibit P5 is that the petitioners have withdrawn amounts from SB account on various dates and they were not maintaining the required balance. With regard to the same, in ground B in the writ petition, practically the petitioners have admitted the position. 8. According to the averments in ground B, the petitioners W.P.(C) No.31331/2009 4 had furnished an affidavit with an undertaking that the funds shown in item No.14 will be made available for the purpose of setting up and operation of distributorship. As it is clearly found in the field verification that the petitioners have violated item Nos.14.2 and 14.3 and as the said conclusions in Exhibit P5 are true on facts, this Court will not be justified in interfering in Exhibit P5 as those conditions are meant to be observed in strict terms. It was upto the competent authority to consider various matters and to satisfy itself about the qualification etc. of the petitioners. It is evident from Exhibit P5 that they are insisting for strict compliance of the conditions. It cannot be said to be illegal also. In the light of the fact that the violations shown in Exhibit P5 are really those found in the field verification and as there cannot be any dispute regarding the same, this Court will not be justified in interfering in the matter. This writ petition is dismissed. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp