IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WP.No. 18074 OF 2011 Between: K. Laxmi Kanthamma … Petitioner V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Represented by Sr.Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Royal Nager, Tirupati & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S.V.Ramana Counsel for the Respondents : Sri P. Prabhakar SC for IOC Ltd. for R-1 The Court made the following : (Order follows next page) THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 18074 of 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner herein claims to be physically handicapped with 70% disability. Pursuant to the notification issued by the 1st respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited inviting applications for appointment of retail outlet dealer at Nambulipulikunta village, Anantapur District, under physically handicapped category, the petitioner made her application and also attended the interview on 24.03.2011. Having come to know that the 2nd respondent herein was placed at Sl.No.1 in the list of empanelled candidates, the petitioner made a representation as provided under clause 18 of the conditions specified for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers bringing to the notice of the 1st respondent that the 2nd respondent herein was not eligible to be considered under the physically handicapped category. It was also alleged in the said complaint that the 2nd respondent had no financial capability and therefore, she cannot be placed at Sl.No.1 in the list of empanelled candidates. It is pleaded that though the said representation was received by the 1st respondent on 20.04.2011, the 1st respondent failed to consider the same. Apprehending that in the meanwhile, the selections for the retail outlet dealer may be finalised, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the objections raised by the petitioner in her representation dated 15.04.2011 is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri P.Prabhakar, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation. The material available on record shows that the petitioner’s representation/complaint was received in the office of the 1st respondent-Corporation on 20.04.2011. Therefore, the 1st respondent is bound to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in terms of clause 18 of the conditions specified for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers and pass appropriate orders. Having regard to the facts and circumstances noticed above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the objections raised by the petitioner in her representation dated 15.04.2011 and pass appropriate orders in terms of clause 18 of the of the conditions specified for Selection of Petrol/Diesel Retail Outlet Dealers, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the selection in respect of the retail outlet in question shall not be finalised. _____________ G. ROHINI, J 29.06.2011 KLP/ISL THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WP.No. 18074 of 2011 Circulation No. Date:29-06-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer : Court Hall No.21