IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 26335 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SANTHAMMA, AGED 49 YEARS, D/O.K.CHELLAPPAN, PUTHUPALLY VEEDU, .C.53/2029, KULAKUDIYOORKONAM LANE, NEMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PROPRITER OF M/S.VINOD GAS AGENCY' KARTHIKA UHARAM BUILDING PUNNAMUDU, PALLICHAL P.O.BALARAMMAPURAM,TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESNTED BY ITS REGIONALL.P.G. MANAGER (SOUTH) 1 RANGANATHAN GARDENS, OFF 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI - 40. 2. THE TERITORY MANAGER (L.P.G.)BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., LPG FILLING PLANT, POST BOX NO.6,KAZHAKKUTTAM P.O., PIN-695582, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CAST AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, GOVT. OF INDIA 570 FLOOR, LOK NAIK BHAVAN, KHANMURKOT, NEW DELHI-110003. 4. SASI P.V. S/O. VELAYUDHAN, 3/6, PALLIMOLATHU HOUSE, MORAKKALA DESOM, KUMARAPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN - 683565. 5. BIJU MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW, MANNULLIL HOUSE, MORAKKALA DESOM, KUMARAPURAM P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683565. 6. M/S.SARAPUTHRA THRANSPORTERS REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.SHIBU P.S. PUTHUVAL VILLA, PUTHEN VEEDU, PAMPURAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOLLAM DIST. W.P.(C) No.26335 of 2010 : 2 : 7. M/S.VARNAM TRANSPORTERS, PARIPALLY P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR.GAISHU SUNIL, SURYA, PARIPALLY, KOLLAM PIN. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR FOR R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R5 BYADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS FOR R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR FOR R4 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1-R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.26335 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 7 submitted that the tenders submitted by them were not accepted as they were not found fit for award of the work. In view of the said fact, the petitioner cannot have any subsisting grievance. The writ petition is accordingly closed as infructuous. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.