Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL TUESDAY, THE27H DAY OF MAY20146TH JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 13002 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- RATHEESH E.V, AGED30YEARS, S/O.GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT STRENGA, NADUVIL PO, THALIPARAMBU VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.JOLLY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 051, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR2 THE CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, P.M.K.TOWERS, CIVIL STATION PO, VAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE673020. R BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2705-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13002 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION INVITING APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE BROCHURE ON SELECTION OF RGGLV EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH ITS ANNEXURE EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED75/2012 OF THE2D RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER CURRING DEFECTS AS POINTED OUT BY EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED411/2013 OF THE2D RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED284/2014 OF THE2D RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 COPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD REGARDING THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS PARENTS IN NADVUL CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT LEDGER OF FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT NO.7616 AND7617OF THE NADUVIL CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE BANK EXHIBIT P10 COPIES OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT LEDGER OF FIXED DEPOSIT NOS87028703,8704,8705,8706 AND8707OF NADUVIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVBE BANK EXHIBIT P11 COPIES OF THE TERM DEPOSIT LEDGER OF FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT NOS.55454 AND55455IN THE NADUVIL SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED125/2014 //true copy// P.S. to Judge K. HARILAL, J.
------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(c) . No.13002 of 2014-A ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of May, 2014 JUDGMENT
The petitioner is an applicant who has applied for appointing a Distributor for Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak ('RGGLV') at Naduvil in Kannur District. According to the petitioner, he had fulfilled all the eligibility criteria in accordance with Ext.P2. The 2nd respondent, on receipt of the application and after verification of the same, as per letter dated 7/5/2012, informed the petitioner that there are defects in the application submitted by the petitioner and given an opportunity to submit a representation in order to cure the defects. Thereafter, the petitioner had cured all the defects and the 2nd respondent processed and W.P.(c) . No.13002 of 2014 -:
2. :- considered the application of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is qualified for draw of selection of 'RGGLV'. The draw of lots for selecting candidate for awarding the 'RGGLV' was conducted at 11.30 a.m. on 20/7/2013 and in the draw of lots, the petitioner was selected for award of 'RGGLV' at Naduvil. While so, as per letter dated 28/4/2014, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner has not been found eligible for the reason that minimum fund of ` 2 lakhs, as per policy, was not available, as per the application of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P6, it was clearly stated by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was qualified for draw of lots for selection of 'RGGLV'. The name of a candidate who applied for selection of 'RGGLV' would be included in the lots for draw only if he is found qualified and eligible. So, according to the petitioner, there is no point in Ext.P7 saying that minimum fund of `2 lakhs, as policy, was not available, as per the application of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner approached this Court being deeply aggrieved W.P.(c) . No.13002 of 2014 -:
3. :- by the rejection of his application for award of 'RGGLV' by the 2nd respondent, after finding him eligible for award of the agency and conducting draw of lot.
2. Going by the Writ Petition itself, it is seen that aggrieved by the rejection of the appointment, pursuant to the lot, the petitioner, on the above reason, had filed Ext.P12 representation before 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has not considered that representation so far. Going by the representation, it is seen that the petitioner has stated full details of his claim and also copies of the bank statements are also attached with Ext.P12 representation. At this juncture, I am of the opinion that it is not proper to interfere with the grievance at this stage. It is for the 2nd respondent to apply his mind, at first, over the grievance of the petitioner.
3. In the above view, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P12 representation filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of W.P.(c) . No.13002 of 2014 -:
4. :- receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent shall not finalise the Distributor for concerned area till the disposal of Ext.P12 representation. This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge