IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23652 of 2009(B)
1. ROLLY K.J., AGED 36 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. BHARAT PETROLEUM LIMITED
... Respondent
2. RAKHI SUNILKUMAR
3. JOFFY P.J.
For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :17/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 23652 OF 2009
Dated -------------------------- 2009
this the 17th day of September,
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. V.M.Krishnankumar, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri. S.Sujin, the learned standing counsel
appearing for the first respondent and Sri. N.Reghuraj, the learned
counsel appearing for the second respondent. Though the third
respondent has also been served, he has not chosen to enter
appearance.
2. By a notification published in the Malayala Manorama daily
dated 29.11.2007, the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
invited applications from eligible persons for appointment as LPG
distributor at various places including Chazhoor in
Thiruvananthapuram District. The last date prescribed for
submission of applications was 31.1.2008. One of the stipulations
in the notification inviting applications was that if the applicant is
not the owner of the show room, he must produce a registered
lease deed in his favour leasing out the show room to him for a
minimum period of 15 years or a Notarized sale agreement. Yet
W.P.(C) No. 23652/09
2
another stipulation was that the proposed godown should be within
a radius of 15 Km. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 applied
for award of the distributorship. After an earlier round of litigation,
the interview was held and a rank list was prepared in which the
second respondent was ranked first and the third respondent was
ranked second.
3. This writ petition was thereupon filed challenging the
selection of respondents 2 and 3. After the second respondent was
selected, a letter of intend was also issued to her. The petitioner
contends that the land offered by the second respondent for
erecting a godown for storing LPG cylinders is situated beyond a
distance of 15 Kms from the show room offered by her and
therefore she is not eligible to be appointed. It is also contended
that the second respondent does own a show room at Chazhoor and
that either notarized or registered lease deed was also not produced
by her. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit and
produced along with it a copy of the registered lease deed executed
by the lessor in her favour leasing out to her a parcel of land
together with the building therein for a period of 15 years. The
W.P.(C) No. 23652/09
3
lease deed was executed on 24.1.2008 and was registered on
25.1.2008 in the Sub Registrar’s Office, Anthikkad. The second
respondent has in categorical terms also averred that the land
where the godown is situated, is only 11.5 Kms away from the show
room offered by her. Though the counter affidavit was filed on
25.8.2009, till date the petitioner has not chosen to deny the said
facts.
4. It is evident from the registered lease deed produced by
the second respondent which was executed on 24.1.2008 and
registered on 25.1.2008, that she is in possession of a parcel of
land together with a building therein which is available to be used
as a show room. I, therefore find no merit in the contention of the
petitioner that the second respondent does not have a show room
and that she had not produced a lease deed either registered or
notarized. As regards the distance from the show room to the
premises of the godown offered by the second respondent, the
petitioner has not been able to show that the statement made by the
second respondent that the godown is situated only 11.5. Km away
from the show room is erroneous or incorrect. In the absence of
W.P.(C) No. 23652/09
4
any cogent material to disprove the claim made by the second
respondent, the said contention also fails. These and other aspects
have been adverted to by the official respondents in Ex.P8 order,
which is impugned in this writ petition.
I, accordingly hold that there is no merit in this writ petition.
The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE
vps