IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30345 of 2009(K)
1. SINDU JOSEPH, MANIKOMPEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
... Respondent
2. SAHIRA BASHEER, W/O. K.M.ABDUL BASHEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.K.SATHEESH
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :13/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 30345 of 2009-K
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The challenge is against Ext.P8 by which the petitioner’s selection for
appointment as LPG Distributor, stands cancelled, finding that she is
ineligible and disqualified for being considered for appointment.
2. The circumstances leading to the issue are the following: The
notification in question was issued as per Ext.P1 dated 27.12.2007 and
applications were invited for LPG Distributorship in Kasaragod (Urban)
under Open (Woman) category. Ext.P2 is the copy of the application
submitted by the petitioner. The land offered is situated at Kalanad,
Maniamkode. An interview was conducted in which the petitioner secured
the highest marks, whereas the second respondent secured only second rank.
It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter the officers of the Indian Oil
Corporation inspected the site on 11.2.2009 and they were fully satisfied
with the location of show room and godown.
3. The second respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.729/2009 after filing a complaint before the grievance redressal
authority. This Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass
wpc30345 /2009 2
orders on the said complaint. It was rejected as per Ext.P4. The said order
was challenged by the second respondent before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.6947/2009 and this Court directed the first respondent to consider the
appeal after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties.
4. Meanwhile, on the request made by the first respondent, the
Tahsildar also filed a report which shows that the distance from the plot
offered by the petitioner and Kasaragod town is 5.9 kms. and Ext.P6 is the
copy of the report. It is after hearing parties, Ext.P8 order has been passed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
finding in Ext.P8 cannot be justified. The land offered is in a convenient
locality and it is on the side of the Highway and the maximum distance will
be only 6 kms. from the town. Therefore, the petitioner has satisfied all the
requirements as per clause 13.2 of Ext.P1 notification. It is further
submitted that the area of operation being 15 kms., there cannot be any
objection with regard to the acceptance of the site offered by the petitioner.
Reliance is also placed on Ext.P9 order passed in a similar case by the first
respondent, although in another district.
6. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the
order passed. The crucial issue is whether the location offered by the
wpc30345 /2009 3
petitioner could have been accepted by the first respondent. It is clear from
the averments in the counter affidavit that after completion of the field
verification it was found that the show room proposed by the petitioner was
not in the location advertised, viz. Kasaragod Urban. The location offered
was situated in Kalanad Panchayat and it is beyond the urban area and
municipal limits of Kasaragod. According to the first respondent, the show
room should have been located within the notified location and therefore it
cannot be accepted.
7. The main aspect is whether the argument raised by the petitioner
that the location is convenient, could be accepted. It is clear from the
pleadings of the petitioner also that it is at a distance of 5.9 kms. from
Kasaragod town. The notified locality is Kasaragod (Urban), i.e. within the
municipal limits. The location offered by the petitioner is in a panchayat
area. Even though an argument was raised that it need be located within a
distance of 15 kms., as explained by the first respondent in the counter
affidavit, the godown can be situated within a distance of 15 kms., but the
show room is liable to be located within the location advertised for. That
alone will enable the customers to have access for the purpose of booking
and other matters
8. The locality where the show room is to be situated should be at a
wpc30345 /2009 4
place convenient to the customers. Here, the distance is by about 5.9 kms.
It cannot therefore be stated that the view taken by the first respondent is
on a misreading of the factual aspects. A reading of Ext.P8 shows that all
the relevant aspects were considered and it cannot be said that the
conclusion arrived at is faulty.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/