Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Harshan.K.V vs The National Commission For The on 4 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24448 of 2010(E)


1. HARSHAN.K.V, AGED 50,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. THE TERRITORY MANAGER (L.P.G),

5. THE REGIONAL L.P.G. MANAGER (SOUTH),

6. SASI.P.V., S/O.VELAYUDHAN,

7. BIJU MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.N.MANOJ

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :04/08/2010

 O R D E R
                              S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                      ==================

                       W.P.(C).No. 24448 of 2010

                      ==================

                 Dated this the 4th day of August, 2010

                              J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a member of a Scheduled Caste community.

The petitioner responded to a notification inviting applications

published by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation for tenders for

transportation of packed LPG from their bottling plant at

Thiruvananthapuram, to various outlets. The petitioner’s grievance is

that the 6th respondent, who, though a Scheduled Caste member, has

been allowed to participate in the tender process as a benami of the 7th

respondent, who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste community.

The petitioner submits that the 7th respondent has transferred six

trucks to the 6th respondent to enable him to participate in the tender

process, although the 6th respondent does not have the financial

capacity to purchase six trucks all on a sudden. The petitioner,

therefore, seeks the following reliefs;

“a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction to the
1st respondent to process the Exhibit P6 petition filed by the
petitioner and to conduct an enquiry and dispose the same in
accordance with Law by giving opportunity to the petitioner for
hearing and to adduce evidence with in a time limit fixed by this
Hon’ble Court.

b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction to the
2nd respondent to process the Exhibit P7 petition filed by the
petitioner and to conduct an enquiry and dispose the same in
accordance with Law with in a time limit fixed by this Hon’ble
Court.

w.p.c.24448/10 2

c) To issue an order in the nature of Writ of mandamus or any other
order or directions (sic) 3rd respondent to process the Exhibit P8
petition filed by the petitioner and to conduct an enquiry and
dispose the same in accordance with Law with in a time limit fixed
by this Hon’ble Court.

2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that, for the present, the petitioner would be satisfied with a direction

to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6

expeditiously.

3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the

learned standing counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Limited. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, I do not think it

necessary to issue notice to respondents 1, 6 and 7 at this juncture.

4. Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with

a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment after

affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and

respondents 6 and 7.

Sd/-

sdk+                                                  S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                                P.A. to Judge

w.p.c.24448/10    3


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.101 seconds.