IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 5133 of 2002(J) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ S.AYESHA HASSAN KANNU, MALEPUNNACKAL HOUSE, VIZHINJAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.) SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DEALERS SELECTION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.T.C. TOWER, S.S.COIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K.S.SAJAN, CHITHRAM, MUTTACAUD P.O., VENGANOOR, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. . SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SMT.PRIYA MAHESH SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP.NO.9133 OF 2002 IN OP.NO.5133 OF 2002 DISMISSED 6.2.2002. SD/= P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIN SENT BY THE NON-MEMBER SECRETARY, DEALER SELECTION BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DTD 22.11.01 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE TELEGRAM SENT BY THE NON-MEMBER SECRETARY, DEALER SELECTION BOARD, TRIVANDRIUM DTD 19.12.2001 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE R3(i) COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 21.3.02 TO R3. /TRUE COPY/ cl P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------------- O.P.NO.5133 OF 2002-J -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT In the original petition filed on 14.2.2002 the petitioner challenges the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent as a retail dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation at Vizhinjam. The petitioner alleges that the 3rd respondent was preferred for the reason that he was a member of the State Committee of the BJP. 2. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed separate counter affidavits. The 2nd respondent, the Secretary of the Dealer Selection Board, Trivandrum has stated in the counter affidavit that after interviewing the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and others (19 in all) the merit list was finalised and published on 8.1.2002. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that it was after evaluating the merits of the applicants that the select list was prepared and published. The counter affidavit also denies the vague allegation in the original petition that the 3rd respondent was preferred because he was a member of the State Committee of the B.J.P. Apart from raising a vague allegation that the selection was made OP.NO.5133/2000 . 2 only for the reason that the 3rd respondent was a member of the State Committee of the BJP, the petitioner has not furnished any cogent material based on which this Court can come to the conclusion that the selection of the 3rd respondent was in any way infirm or vitiated. No material is produced to show that the 3rd respondent was not qualified or eligible to be appointed as a dealer. 3. The appointment in question was made as early as in February, 2002. Six years have passed thereafter. In the absence of any material in support of the petitioner's contentions and in view of the passage of time, I find no reason to interfere with the selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent. The original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. cl OP.NO.5133/2000 . 3 P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. O.P.NO.5133 OF 2002-J JUDGMENT 6th February, 2008.