IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2011 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26832 of 2011(D) ---------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- MR. P.M. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. P.T. MADHAVAN, PUTHENTHARAYIL HOUSE, KANNAMKUZHI DESOM, ATHIRAPPILLY, VETTILAPPARA P.O., THRISSUR DIST., KERALA STATE, PIN - 680 721. BY ADVS. SRI.M.N.MANOJ SRI.V.C.VALSAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, HPC LTD., SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD, IRUBANAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA STATE, PIN - 682 309. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3. SMT. AJITHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O. CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA P.O., AROORMUZHI DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, PIN - 682 309. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.GOPINATH R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 26832 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH INDIAN OIL AND BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., IN MATHRBHUMI DAILY DATED 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 27-01-2011. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT UNDER POSTAL CERTIFICATE BEARING DATE 16.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2011 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE PAGE NO. 12 AND 13 OF THE BROCHURE ON THE GUIDELINES FOR THE SELECTION OF THE REGULAR L.P.G. DISTRIBUTORS -2011, DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH OTHER PETROLEUM COMPANIES. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28-09-2011. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE COURIER RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER SHOWING THAT THE ABOVE REPRESENTATION HAS BEEN SENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 26832 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of October, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner applied for appointment as LPG distributor (Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vithrak) at Athirapilly in Thissur District pursuant to a notification issued by the three public Sector oil companies. The third respondent also submitted an application. In terms of the provisions contained in the guidelines governing selection, a draw of lots was also held and the third respondent was selected. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P6 representation addressed to the Senior Regional Manger of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited pointing out that the land offered by the third respondent is unsuitable for the purpose of running the outlet. This writ petition is filed contending that though as per the guidelines governing the selection, a complaint can be filed after the candidate is selected by draw of lots, the Senior Regional manger of the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is not enquiring into Ext.P6. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the first respondent to enquire into Ext.P6 after WPC No.26832/2011 2 affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and to adduce evidence, if necessary, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned standing counsel appearing for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited submitted on instructions that even going by the averments in paragraph 2 and 3 of Ext.P6, the petitioner is not clear as to the authority to whom he should file the complaint, that a reading of Ext.P6 would indicate that the dealership is being awarded by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation and that grounds set out by the petitioner in Ext.P6 to challenge the selection of the third respondent and the award of the distributorship to him are not teneable. 3. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. Ext.P5 which is a portion of the guidelines governing selection of candidates by draw of lots stipulates that complaints received against the applicants will be disposed of even if they are received after the draw and appropriate action will be taken. It is also stipulated that if the complaints are not substantiated it will be filed and the WPC No.26832/2011 3 complainant will be given a reply. In such circumstances, as the guidelines stipulate that complaints can be filed even after the draw of lots is held, I am of the opinion that the first respondent to whom it is addressed should examine the complaint and take an appropriate decision thereon and inform the petitioner of the same. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority among the respondents to examine Ext.P6 complaint, take an appropriate decision thereon and inform the petitioner in writing of the same expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.26832/2011 4