High Court Kerala High Court

Beena K.F. vs Union Of India on 18 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
Beena K.F. vs Union Of India on 18 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31996 of 2008(H)


1. BEENA K.F., W/O. JOSE C.A.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,

3. MRS. RAKHY SUNIKUMAR, AGE NOT KNOWN,

4. MRS. ROLLY K.J., AGE NOT KNOWN

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.SUJIN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :18/06/2009

 O R D E R
                        V.GIRI, J
                      -------------------
                  W.P.(C).31996/2008
                     --------------------
         Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009

                     JUDGMENT

Petitioner responded to a notification issued by

the 2nd respondent for award of distributorship of LPG

in Chazhoor. Ext.P1 is the notification published in

the newspaper. Ext.P2 is a more detailed version

published on the website. Petitioner participated in

the selection and ultimately higher marks were

awarded to the contesting respondents and hence the

writ petition praying for several reliefs. One of the

reliefs prayed for relates to the validity of clause 14(1)

and (2) of Ext.P2 inter alia to the extent to which the

clause contemplates higher marks, to be awarded for

a better financial stability, to be demonstrated by the

participants. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that at this stage, petitioner will be satisfied

with a direction to the Territory Manager to consider

Ext.P6, a comprehensive representation.

2. I heard learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

W.P.(C).31996/08
2

also in this regard. In the result, writ petition is

disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider

and pass orders on Ext.P6 and if the 2nd respondent is

inclined to accept the same, notice shall be issued to

respondents 3 and 4 before taking a final decision in

this regard.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs