THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NO.3380 OF 2009 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents that the petitioner lost her merit position in the merit list for selection as LPG Distributorship of Vijayawada location as communicated in reference No. LPG/Vijayawada, dated 11-02-2009, as arbitrary and illegal. It appears that in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vijayawada on 01-10-2007, the petitioner applied for LPG distributorship. According to the petitioner, she obtained highest marks i.e., 99.16 and she was entitled for being allotted with distributorship. However, impugned notice dated 11-2-2009 was issued stating that it had come to light that the title papers for these facilities were not registered on the date of application i.e., 31-10-2007 as required under the terms and conditions of the advertisement. But, the same were registered on 5th January 2008 after submission of the application. Therefore, it cannot be treated as “owned/leased” and the same is treated as “Firm Offer” and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for 18 marks for godown facilities and 8 marks for showroom facilities and the total marks have been revised from 99.16 to 89.16 and the same has been informed to the petitioner to say that she is not a meritorious candidate. There is no necessity to go into all the details. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner submitted her application on 31-10-2007 along with the document showing registration of the land on 31-10-2007 itself. However, in view of the instructions given to the Registration Department before registering any document to verify the same with the revenue authorities, it appears, there was a delay in releasing the document after its registration. The document was released on 5th January, 2008. Thus, there was a delay. Initially, there was no objection for this. But, under the impugned order, it came to light when they have verified the facts. It is not their case that there was no such document registered on 31-10-2007 as to lease of the land for the purpose of the facilities to be provided. In fact on the basis of that document, the petitioner was allotted 99.16 marks, which now sought to be reduced by saying that the document was registered only on 5th January, 2008 but not on 31st October, 2007. In fact, exhibits clearly show that the document was registered on 31-10-2007, but it was released on 5th January, 2008 in view of the verification that is required by the Registration Department. This is taken as a rule to deny marks to the petitioner to say that she is not a meritorious candidate and therefore, her application will not be considered. The applicant is an un-employed lady, who is a widow and she is a Doctor and in fact on the basis of the educational qualifications, she was given some more marks and she was able to compete with others and ultimately stood as first meritorious candidate. This position is sought to be disturbed under the impugned order under the guise registration was not done. There was no registered document on 31st October, 2007 which is not correct. May be, the document was released little late in view of the precedural rankles but that does not mean that there was no registered document produced by the petitioner along with the application on 31-10-2007. In fact, the document dated 31-10-2007, rental agreement as well as lease, was from no other than her own brother. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents reduced 10 marks on the ground that the petitioner had no registered lease document on 31-10-2007 is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner treating that she had obtained 99.16 marks in the evaluation and pass appropriate orders, as per law. ______________ C.V.RAMULU,J Rkk Dated: 23-12-2010