IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WA.No. 2274 of 2008 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30078/2008 Dated 22/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT:PETITIONER ----------------------------------- BEENA.P., W/O.PADMANABHAN, KANIYOORVALAPPIL HOUSE, MUTHOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL RESPONDENT: RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, INDANE AREA OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COHIN - 682 036. BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2274 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 30078 of 2008, dated 22.10.08, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this Writ Appeal. 2. In the writ petition filed, the primary grievance of the petitioner was, that, though she had submitted an application pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent inviting applications for awarding LPG distributorship, reserved in open category for woman, the petitioner was not called for the interview. 3. The learned Single Judge has extracted in extenso the counter affidavit filed by the respondent. In the said affidavit, the respondents have stated, that, the applicants are require to submit an affidavit in the form prescribed in Annexure A, and, the affidavit filed by the petitioner was defective and, in as much as she has omitted Clause 1 of the affidavit in part and Clauses 4 and 5 completely. They have also stated, that, since the conditions in the said clauses are not fulfilled, the petitioner is found to be ineligible for consideration for appointment for LPG distributorship W.A. No. 2274 of 2008 -:2:- and accordingly, her application had been rejected and therefore, petitioner was not called for the interview. Further they have stated, that, out of 36 applications received, 9 applicants were found to be ineligible and interview/call letters have been issued to 27 applicants, whose applications were in conformity with the notification issued by the respondent. Keeping in view all these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. It is the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of this Writ Appeal. 4. In the instant case, petitioner was also one of the applicants pursuant to the notification issued by the respondent inviting applications from the interested persons for granting the LPG distributorship. It was expected of the applicant to have complied with all the conditions prescribed in the notification. Since that was not done by the applicant, the respondent has rejected the application and accordingly, they have not called the applicant for interview. A person who had not complied with the requirements of the notification, he/she is not entitled to be called for any interview as such, to award the LPG distributorship. 5. Keeping these aspects of the matter in view, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error whatsoever W.A. No. 2274 of 2008 -:3:- which would call for our interference in the appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal requires to be dismissed and it is dismissed. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE ttb