THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 28891 of 2010 22nd November 2010. Between: RAVURI SIVARAMA KRISHNA .. Petitioner And BHARAT PETROLEUM CORP., LTD., A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE KURNOOL LPG PLANT AND TERRITORY BEING REP. BY ITS R.SIVASANKARAN, TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG) KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 28891 of 2010 O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed calling in question the correctness and validity of the orders passed on 3-10-2010 by the respondent-Corporation, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for awarding dealership of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena LPG Vitrak Scheme (for brevity Vitrak Scheme) introduced by it. The respondent- Corporation issued a notification on 30.3.2010 calling for applications under the Vitrak Scheme, for establishment of one such outlet at Kurichedu, Prakasam District. The writ petitioner is one who has responded by submitting his application. The petitioner appears to be the owner of the land both at Kurichedu village as well as West Veerayapalem village, which is a proximately close village. The writ petitioner in his application at Column No.9 has claimed to be owning land to the extent of 20.3 x 24.5 meters dimension situated in Survey Nos.412/2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Kurichedu village. He has also enclosed the necessary documents in support of the said claim. When the document has been scrutinized on 4.9.2010 the officers of the respondent-Corporation have entertained a doubt as to whether the land claimed by the writ petitioner is situated in Kurichedu village or West Veerayapalem village. Hence, they sought a clarification through the writ petitioner through their communication dated 4.9.2010. It appears the writ petitioner on the very same day submitted a representation pointing out that he also owns another land in Kurichedu village which is equally suitable for construction of a godown and the land which he has claimed in his application is indeed situate in West Veerayapalem village. The writ petitioner, has been treated as an eligible applicant and accordingly he has been subjected to the process of draw of lots. It is the assertion of the writ petitioner that he was a successful allottee, but, however, the impugned order has been passed on 3.10.2010 cancelling his candidature on the very same pretext that the land described by him as suitable for construction of a godown in his application form is not forming part of Kurichedu village which is located at West Veerayapalem village and hence his application and his candidature are cancelled. Sri.Seetharam Chaparla, learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the respondent having invited the necessary clarifications of the writ petitioner on 4.9.2010 and upon being satisfied that the writ petitioner has not suffered any ineligibility or disqualification have rendered him eligible and after he has emerged as the successful candidate in the draw of lots could not have turned-round and made the very same factor for treating him as an ineligible person. Further, the learned counsel would submit that at the initial stage of scrutiny itself if the writ petitioner’s application has been rendered ineligible he would still have an opportunity to make a representation to the next higher officer within a period of 15 days thereafter. By accepting his explanation and treating him to have become as eligible person and having allowed his candidature to fructify as a successful one the respondent could not have passed the impugned order canceling his candidature. The latter submission of Sri.Seetharam Chaparla contains merit. If the writ petitioner has been declared as an ineligible person in the initial stage of scrutiny of his application he could have taken up the matter for consideration by a higher agency by preferring a representation in that regard. Having called for his explanation on 4.9.2010 and the respondent having allowed him to be treated as an eligible person to participate in the draw of lots, could not have denied the petitioner the benefit of going before the next superior authority. Admittedly, there was some error with regard to the description of the land or its location. If the petitioner was able to satisfy the respondent that he truly owns land in Kurichedu village itself, which is suitable for construction of LPG godown, perhaps the appellate authority or the redressal grievance committee of the respondent-Corporation could have taken that into account. If they are truly satisfied with the land owned by the petitioner for construction of a godown located at Kurichedu village they would have had an opportunity to still render him as an eligible candidate for the purpose of construction of a godown in the lands owned by the petitioner at Kurichedu village instead of West Veerayapalem village. In the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, particularly when the respondent-Corporation has invited the clarification of the petitioner on 4.9.2010 i.e. prior to the draw of lots, as alleged by the writ petitioner, I consider that the writ petitioner should not be denied the advantage of seeking redressal of his grievance. If the writ petitioner submits any representation making out a grievance out of the decision contained in the impugned order the said representation may be entertained by the respondent-Corporation and be dealt with in accordance with the stipulations contained in the scheme framed by it. The writ petitioner is accorded time till 30-11-2010 for submitting the said representation and I am confident that the same will be dealt with and decided in accordance with the terms contained in the Vitrak scheme within a maximum period of 30 days thereafter. With this the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 22nd November, 2010 cc two days/tnb THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 28891 of 2010 22nd November, 2010.