IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30828 of 2009(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- KUMARI KURIAKOSE, PAREKUDIYIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARY SOUTH P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER(LPG), INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN. 3. SHEENA KOZHY, PEACE COTTAGE, PEERMADE P.O., PEERMADE VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 4. NISHEEMA ANULAL, VADAKKEYIL HOUSE, KARIKODE VILLAGE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY MR. E.K. NANDAKUMAR, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN,J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30828 of 2009 - W ---------------------------------------- Dated 5th November, 2009 Judgment The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 applied for appointment as LPG distributor pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Respondents 3 and 4 were ranked 1 and 2 and the petitioner was ranked 3 in the list of empaneled candidates. Complaining that respondents 3 and 4 are not qualified and that the marks awarded to them under various heads are disproportionately high, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 complaint before the first respondent in terms of the stipulations in the guidelines issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, a copy of which is Ext.P3. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the official respondents to keep further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 in abeyance till Ext.P6 complaint is enquired into. 2. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that the complaint voiced by the petitioner is being enquired into and W.P.(C) No.30828/2009 2 that the enquiry will be completed in another two weeks. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the petitioner also may be heard before final orders are passed in the matter. The learned standing counsel appearing for the official respondents does not seriously oppose the said request. 3. In view of the admitted fact that Ext.P6 complaint filed by the petitioner in terms of clause 21 of Ext.P3 is being enquired into and as the dispute relates to award of marks to respondents 3 and 4, I am of the opinion that the petitioner as well as respondents 3 and 4 should be given an opportunity of being heard in person. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the competent authority among the official respondents to hear the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 before passing orders on Ext.P6 complaint filed by the petitioner. Till such time as Ext.P6 complaint is enquired into and orders passed, the Letter of Intent shall not be issued. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge vaa