HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W. P. No. 15922 of 2009 WEDNESDAY THE 19th DAYOF AUGUST, 2009 Between: Devulapalli Ravi Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND Indian Oil Corporation Limited And another .....RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R:- The petitioner asserts that in response to the Advertisement dated 01.10.2007 issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications for appointment of L.P.G. Distributors in Andhra Pradesh for 84, 46 and 75 locations, he submitted his application dated 29.10.2007 by affixing photograph on it by paying process fee of Rs.1,000/- for the area Nalgonda Town. While so, the 1st respondent-Corporation issued the impugned proceedings dated 07.07.2009 rejecting his application on the ground that the petitioner has not affixed his photograph on his application. Then, the petitioner made a representation dated 13.7.2009 stating that he affixed photograph on the application and requested the 2nd respondent to consider his application and award LPG Distributorship in his favour. Now, it is his grievance that the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings rejecting his candidature for appointment to LPG Distributorship after two years of receiving his application and the respondents are going ahead with the process of selection and appointment of LPG Distributors. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the impugned proceedings, and consequently direct the respondents to consider his application and award LPG Distributorship in his favour. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Limited appearing for the respondents and perused the material placed on record. On 05.08.2009, this Court, while ordering Notice Before Admission, directed the learned Standing Counsel for Indian Oil Corporation Limited to produce the records before this Court on 12.08.2009 to verify whether the petitioner has affixed his photograph on the original application, and further directed that till such time they shall not make any appointments. On 12.08.2009, when the matter was called, the learned Standing Counsel produced the original record, but none appeared for the petitioner nor was made any representation on his behalf, as such, the matter was adjourned to this day under the caption “for dismissal”. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions as averred in the writ petition, but the original record produced by the respondents reveals that no photograph of the petitioner is found to have been affixed on the application of the petitioner nor is there any stapling mark on the application, indicating that the photograph was stapled on the space provided for affixing the photograph. Even though the petitioner averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he affixed photograph on his application, but from a perusal of the record, particularly the original application dated 29.10.2007 of the petitioner, produced by the respondents before this Court, it is obvious that no photograph of the petitioner is found to have been affixed on it. In the absence of the photograph alleged to have been affixed by the petitioner on his original application, this Court cannot grant the relief as claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th August, 2009 bcj