P.P.Naseer vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation … on 2 July, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 11220 of 2010(B)


1. P.P.NASEER,S/O.MOIDEENHAJI.B, AGED 32
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN

3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANGER, HINDUSTAN

4. ABDUL  BASHEER.P.M, S/O.P.ABDUL AZEEZ,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.HARISH R. MENON

                For Respondent  :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :02/07/2010

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

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

                       W.P.(C).No. 11220 of 2010

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

                  Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner filed an application for LPG distributorship before

the 1st respondent. In the rank list prepared, the petitioner was ranked

as third. According to the petitioner, the first and second rank holders

have declined to accept the distributorship and, therefore, the

petitioner is entitled to be awarded distributorship. He also submits

that the 4th respondent to whom the distributorship is awarded is

ineligible because he had withdrawn amounts from the bank account,

which were shown as his eligibility for being considered for

distributorship.

2. All these specific averments have been denied by

respondents 1 to 3 in their statement. They have specifically stated

that the 4th respondent is the second ranked person and that the

allegation that he withdrew amounts from the bank is not supported by

any evidence.

3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

4. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the

contentions in the statement filed by respondents 1 to 3, particularly

the statements that the 4th respondent who is second ranked holder is

eligible and that the allegation that he withdrew amounts from the

w.p.c.11220/10 2

bank, are not substantiated by any evidence are in anyway incorrect.

In fact the petitioner has not filed any reply to the statement also.

Admittedly, the 4th respondent is the second rank holder. The

petitioner is only the 3rd rank holder and insofar as the petitioner could

not satisfy this Court that the second rank holder is ineligible for any

reason, the petitioner cannot successfully challenge the award of

distributorship to the 4th respondent. Accordingly, the writ petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

sdk+                                              S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

          ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge