IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 2747 of 2002(B) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.KUNHIMOIDU, S/O. UMMER,AGED 50 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, RESIDING AT "DAYA", CHOKLI P.O., THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT,PIN-670 672. BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN, ADV. SRI.K.LAKSHMINARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, P.B.NO.2, N.H.ROAD, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 621. 2. DEALER SELECTION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS NON-MEMBER SECRETARY, G-86, FIRST FLOOR, NEAR VSNL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,COCHIN-682 036, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NASARUL ASLAM.K., AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT NMP-V/373A, SIRIN PALACE, P.O.KURICHIYIL, THALASSERY-670 102,KANNUR DIST. 4. THE GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KANNUR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SMT.PRIYA MANJOORAN, ADV. SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR, R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN, ADDL.CGSC, ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, SC, BSNL. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 2747/2002-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DTD. 21/11/2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 28/08/2000 APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 21/11/2000. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE AWARDED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MINISTER FOR SOCIAL WELFARE DTD. 31/01/1996. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF WELFARE DTD. 03/12/1996. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 13/02/1975 SISUED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 07/06/1976 ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/12/2001 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE SHORT-LIST DTD. 08/01/2002 PUBLISHED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE TELEPHONE DIRECTORY INQUIRY RESULTS OBTAINED FROM WWW.KERALATELECOM.COM/. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DTD. 12/06/02 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE R.3. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No.2747 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an applicant for selection as authorised LPG dealer of the 1st respondent-Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. in the quota prescribed for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent applied. In the order of merit, in the select list prepared, the 3rd respondent was put ahead of the petitioner and accordingly, the 3rd respondent was selected for the dealership. That selection is under challenge before me. 2. Three grounds are mentioned in the original petition. The first is that the 3rd respondent does not have minimum 40 per cent disability which is the eligibility condition for allotment under the quota for physically handicapped persons. The second is that the 3rd respondent has already obtained similar benefit available for handicapped persons for running an STD booth and therefore, he is not eligible for the same benefit again. The third is that the 3rd respondent is residing 12 Kms. away from the place where the dealership is to be located, whereas the o.p.2747/02 2 petitioner is a resident of the very same locality. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent they have detailed the criteria adopted by them for deciding the eligibility. They have specifically stated that as per the certificate produced by the 3rd respondent from the competent authority, the 3rd respondent has the minimum 40 per cent disability and that they have no reason to doubt the correctness of that certificate. The petitioner has not been able to produce before me any material to prove that the certificate produced by the 3rd respondent regarding his disability is in any way legally unacceptable. Therefore, I am not inclined to countenance that contention. The fact that the 3rd respondent had obtained the benefit as handicapped person for some other selection, is no bar for the same person competing for an LPG dealership. No provision has been brought to my notice, which would disentitle a physically handicapped person from getting the reservation in another selection after earlier availing of the reservation in an earlier selection for a different purpose. Therefore, there is no merit in the second contention also. Regarding the third contention, the fact that the petitioner is residing in the locality o.p.2747/02 3 where the LPG dealership is to be located and the 3rd respondent resides 12 Kms. away is of no consequence in so far as the eligibility conditions do not prevent the 3rd respondent from applying for the dealership in that ground. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in any of the contentions of the petitioner against the selection of the 3rd respondent and accordingly, the original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.2747/02 4 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================ O.P.No.2747 of 2002-B ================ J U D G M E N T 18th November, 2008 o.p.2747/02 5