IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5350 of 2009(K)
1. VARGHESE MATHEW, S/O.E.V.MATHEW
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER
For Petitioner :SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :11/03/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.5350 OF 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner was an applicant for allotment of LPG
dealership of the 1st respondent company. In the interview
conducted, the petitioner obtained the highest marks. Despite
the same, the petitioner was not awarded the distributorship. It
is under the above circumstances, the petitioner approached this
Court seeking the following the reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to
act upon Ext.P5 rank list at once and appoint the
petitioner as the LPG distributor for HPC at Perumbavoor;
(ii) declare that respondent cannot go behind the
rank list Ext.P5;
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents
not to issue LOI or appoint any person other than the
petitioner as LPG distributor at Perumbavoor pending final
hearing and disposal of the above Writ Petition; and
(v) award to the petitioner the cost of this Writ
Petition”.
2. The matter came up on 18.2.2009 before another
learned Judge, who avoided the writ petition. It came up again
W.P.(c)No.5350/09 2
on 19.2.2009 on which date, the Standing Counsel took time
to get instructions and I adjourned it by two weeks for that
purpose. The same again came up on 5.3.2009. On that date,
the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted
that the petitioner had been disqualified for having submitted
wrong information in the application form regarding the land
offered for the dealership. They also submitted that a
communication had been issued to the petitioner regarding the
same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner now submits
that on the next day namely, 6.3.2009, a pre-dated
communication dated 2.3.2009 was forwarded to the petitioner
stating that the petitioner is not eligible for distributorship.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation
refutes the allegation. He would submit that the respondents
were under the impression that no communication need be
issued in this regard, since once it is found that the
information supplied by the petitioner in the application form is
incorrect, the disqualification is automatic. He also points out
W.P.(c)No.5350/09 3
a Clause in the instructions to the applicants in the application
form itself to that effect.
5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.
6. I am of opinion that the respondents cannot
unilaterally decide the question as to whether the person is
disqualified or not, that too a person, who had obtained the
highest marks in the interview. When the respondents are of
opinion that any information supplied in the application form is
wrong, the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to controvert
the same or explain the same appropriately, without an
opportunity for which, the respondents could not have taken
action against the petitioner for disqualification. In the above
circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
The communication now issued to the petitioner shall be
treated as a show cause notice. The petitioner shall file his
reply to the same within one week from today. The 2nd
respondent shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner and decide the matter finally. Needless to say, it
W.P.(c)No.5350/09 4
would be open to the petitioner to challenge any adverse
orders in that regard. Till such orders are passed, the award
of dealership shall not be finalised.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.5350/09 5