IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5350 of 2009(K) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VARGHESE MATHEW, S/O.E.V.MATHEW AGED 47 , EMBASSERIL HOUSE, KURUPPAMPADY PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.JAYAKUMAR MS.JEENA JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD L.P.G REGIONAL OFFICE, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 MR.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 MR.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 MR.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 MR.V.J.ANAND FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5350 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of LPG dealership of the 1st respondent company. In the interview conducted, the petitioner obtained the highest marks. Despite the same, the petitioner was not awarded the distributorship. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court seeking the following the reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to act upon Ext.P5 rank list at once and appoint the petitioner as the LPG distributor for HPC at Perumbavoor; (ii) declare that respondent cannot go behind the rank list Ext.P5; (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents not to issue LOI or appoint any person other than the petitioner as LPG distributor at Perumbavoor pending final hearing and disposal of the above Writ Petition; and (v) award to the petitioner the cost of this Writ Petition”. 2. The matter came up on 18.2.2009 before another learned Judge, who avoided the writ petition. It came up again W.P.(c)No.5350/09 2 on 19.2.2009 on which date, the Standing Counsel took time to get instructions and I adjourned it by two weeks for that purpose. The same again came up on 5.3.2009. On that date, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had been disqualified for having submitted wrong information in the application form regarding the land offered for the dealership. They also submitted that a communication had been issued to the petitioner regarding the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits that on the next day namely, 6.3.2009, a pre-dated communication dated 2.3.2009 was forwarded to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not eligible for distributorship. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation refutes the allegation. He would submit that the respondents were under the impression that no communication need be issued in this regard, since once it is found that the information supplied by the petitioner in the application form is incorrect, the disqualification is automatic. He also points out W.P.(c)No.5350/09 3 a Clause in the instructions to the applicants in the application form itself to that effect. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. I am of opinion that the respondents cannot unilaterally decide the question as to whether the person is disqualified or not, that too a person, who had obtained the highest marks in the interview. When the respondents are of opinion that any information supplied in the application form is wrong, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to controvert the same or explain the same appropriately, without an opportunity for which, the respondents could not have taken action against the petitioner for disqualification. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The communication now issued to the petitioner shall be treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner shall file his reply to the same within one week from today. The 2nd respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide the matter finally. Needless to say, it W.P.(c)No.5350/09 4 would be open to the petitioner to challenge any adverse orders in that regard. Till such orders are passed, the award of dealership shall not be finalised. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.5350/09 5