IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34892 of 2008(D) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MR.V.BIJU, MELATHIL VEEDU, VALAVUPACHA PO., KADAKKAL VIA., KOLLAM DISTRICST, PIN-691 559. BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REGISTERED OFFICE, G9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG. BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI-400 051. 2. THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. INDANE AREA OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 3. ZIYAD.M., VADAKKATHIL VEEDU, VENJARAMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.34892/008 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DTD. 29/12/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP DTD.29/01/2008. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE GUIDELINES. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 22/10/2008. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE REGISTERED LEASE DEED. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 17/11/2008. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.34892 of 2008 ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner applied for LPG connection vide Ext.P2 in Pravachambalam in Thiruvananthapuram District under the quota reserved for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner makes reference to the marks that are to be allotted as per Exts.P1 and P3 guidelines and contends that at least two crucial aspects have not been taken into account. The petitioner was not awarded marks, which he is otherwise entitled to, in terms of the guidelines. The complaint filed by the petitioner has been rejected under Ext.P9 and the petitioner challenges Ext.P9, contending that none of the reasons stated therein are either tenable or even applicable to the petitioner. 2. On instructions, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner's complaint does not seem to have been considered in accordance with the guidelines and therefore, they are ready to reconsider the issue. W.P.(C).NO.34892/08 :: 2 :: 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned stand counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also. 4. In circumstances where respondents 1 and 2 admit that there has been no consideration of the petitioner's complaint, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent reconsiders the same. This shall be done with notice to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 5. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for LPG distributorship with specific reference to the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the petitioner's holding of land either as owner or on long term lease basis and also with reference to the contention of the petitioner that he, having deposited Rs.20 lakhs as a security, was entitled to requisite marks in terms of the guidelines. The 3rd respondent shall also be given a hearing as regards the contention raised by the petitioner and as stated above, after hearing both sides, a fresh decision shall be taken by the 2nd respondent W.P.(C).NO.34892/08 :: 3 :: within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The award of LPG Distributorship at Pravachambalam by the 1st respondent will abide by the decision to be taken by the 2nd respondent in the manner aforementioned. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before 2nd respondent for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//