Ajith Babu v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Territory Manager (LPG), Kazhakkuttom

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014/17TH POUSHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 18149 of 2013 (P)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **AJITH BABU, AGED 31 YEARS, S/O. BABU VISWANATHAN, KAYIKKARA, AMBALATHARA, POONTHURA POST, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 026.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SMT.GEETHA P.MENON SRI.N.AJITH SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** ## **1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,** **BHARAT BHAVAN, 4 & 6, CURRIMBHOY ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001.** **2. THE TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG), BHARAT PETROLEUM COARPORATION LTD., KAZHAKKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.** **R1 & R2 BY SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR** **SRI.P.GOPINATH MENON SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WP(C).No. 18149 of 2013 (P)** **-----------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **------------------------------------------** **P1 : COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, DTD.30.7.2011.** **P2(A): COPY OF THE FINAL LIST OF ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES, DTD.20.2.2013.** **P2(B): COPY OF THE LIST OF INELIGIBLE CANDIDATES, DTD.20.2.2013.** **P3(A): COPY OF THE LETTER TM: LPG: KAZTM DTD. 1/03/2013.** **P3(B): COPY OF RECORDING PROCEEDINGS OF THE DRAW FOR SELECTION OF LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP, DTD.22.3.2013.** **P4 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.8.7.2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **P5 : COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DTD.12.7.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE SUB REGISTRAR, KAZHAKKUTTOM.** **P6 : COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD.12.7.2013 FURNISHED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, KAZHAKKUTTOM.** **P7 : COPY OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION DTD.15.7.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATTIPPARA.** **P8 : COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD.16.7.2013 FURNISHED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATTIPPARA.** **P9 : COPY OF THE CHART OF ADVERTISEMENT LOCATIONS WITH REMARKS NOTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED NIL.** **P10: COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DOC NO.2985/2011, SRO, KAZHAKKUTTOM DTD.27/08/2011.** **P11: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATTIPPARA, DATED NIL.** **P12: COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF GUIDE LINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULAR LPG DISTRIBUTORS PUBLISHED IN MARCH 2010, DATED NIL.** **.2/-** **Kss** **..2....** ## **WPC.NO.18149/2013 (P)** **P13: COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF GUIDE LINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULAR LGP DISTRIBUTORS PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER, 2010, DATED NIL.** **P14: COPY OF THE BROCHURE OF GUIDE LINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULAR LPG DISTRIBUTORS, PUBLISHED IN APRIL, 2011, DATED NIL.** ## **P15: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORMAT, DATED NIL.** **P16: COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER DTD.12.7.2013.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **-----------------------------------------** **R1(A): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/07/2013 FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAZHAKKOOTTAM.** **R1(B): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 17/07/2013 FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAZHAKKOOTTAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.A.TO JUDGE** ## **Kss** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.** ======================== W.P.(C). No. 18149 of 2013 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of January, 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** The correctness and sustainability of Ext. P4 order dated 8.7.2013 issued by the respondent Corporation, whereby candidature of the petitioner for LPG distributorship at 'Kazhakkuttom' has been declined, forms the subject matter of the challenge in this writ petition. 2. The sequence of events narrated in the writ petition shows that, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification issued by the Oil Marketing Companies with regard to the sanctioning of LPG outlets in as many as 116 locations in the State of Kerala, issued way back on 30.07.2011, the petitioner also made an application putting forth his credentials. It is stated that, altogether 20 applications were there and after the initial round of scrutiny, 14 persons were found eligible as borne by Ext.P2(a) dated 20.02.2013, wherein the petitioner has been placed at serial No.3. Remaining six persons stand deleted from the zone of consideration as borne by Ext.P2(b) dated the same day, i.e., W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -2- 20.02.2013, giving reasons for deletion, including that the showroom or the godown in the case of the persons at serial Nos. 1, 4 to 6 are not at the advertised location/locality. 3. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner was given intimation as per Ext.P3(a) for drawing the lots. As per Ext.P3(b) it is revealed that the petitioner turned to be successful, having won the lot, which was sent on 22.3.2013. Pursuant to Ext.P3(b), a field verification was conducted and subsequently, the candidature of the petitioner came to be rejected as per Ext.P4 stating that the site where the showroom was sought to be provided, was not in the advertised location at 'Kazhakkuttom'. This according to the petitioner is per se wrong and unsustainable as not in conformity with the location specified as per Ext.P1 notification and hence the challenge. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the showroom offered by the petitioner is situated in 'Attippara Village' and the said Village comes within in the area of 'Kazhakkuttom Sub District' in Thiruvananthapuram District. As a matter of fact, 'Kazhakkuttom Sub District' consists of 'five' different Villages and necessary information has been procured by the petitioner in this regard, as borne by Exts.P5 and P6 W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -3- under the RTI Act. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Exts. P7 and P8. Ext.P7 is the request for information filed by the petitioner before the Village Officer, 'Attippara' and Ext.P8 is the information furnished by the Village Officer, 'Attippara' to the effect that 'Kazhakkuttom Railway station' is situated in Attippara Village Block No.17 Re.Sy No.169 and that substantial portion of the area of Technopark, Kazhakkuttom is situated in Attippara Village. It is also pointed out that, the office of the respondent Corporation is situated in Menamkulam Village in the very same Sub District. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, it was after rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, that he filed Ext.P4, when a clarification was sought for from the Village Officer, Kazhakkuttom by the respondent vide Ext.R1(a) dated 17.7.2013 to confirm the location of the showroom offered by the petitioner, which was answered in the negative by the said Village Officer as per Ext.R(b). The learned counsel submits that, as per the notification and particularly, by virtue of the clause stipulated under Clause 15(2) of the Ext. P14 the showroom has to be located in the particular location/locality as specified, and when Ext.P4 order was passed, the respondent Corporation has very conveniently omitted the reference to 'locality'. W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -4- 5. In the counter affidavit filed from the part of the respondents, the factual position and the sequence of events are narrated stating that, the site offered by the petitioner is at a distance of about 5.3 kms from the KSRTC bus stand and the same is not situated within in the notified 'location/locality' which is 'Kazhakkuttom'. This is far apart from the 'Attippara Village' and the position has been confirmed by the concerned Village Officer vide Ext.R1(b) dated 17.7.2013. 6. The assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that, the application preferred by the petitioner was considered, scrutinized and cleared by the respondent Corporation and it was accordingly, that the petitioner was invited for drawing lot, pursuant to Ext.P2(a). In the case of other persons who were found ineligible for having no showroom/godown in the locality/location, their applications were rejected, having not been included in the list as borne by Ext.P2 (b), clearly giving the reasons for the non inclusion. Since the petitioner has already come through the said process of test, there cannot be any further scrutiny, submits the learned counsel, adding that the present course and proceedings pursued by the respondent leading to issuance of Ext.P4 is only an after W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -5- thought and now they are only trying to give some or other explanation so as to sustain the order, which otherwise is not correct or sustainable and hence the challenge. 7. Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that the idea and understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived and that the petitioner was never given any green card to have the selection finalized merely on the basis of his application. Inclusion of the petitioner's name as per Ext.P2(a) was made strictly on the basis of contents of application. It is pointed out that a copy of the application has never been produced by the petitioner; which however is made available during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the respondents, which shows that the address of the showroom as given by the petitioner against column No. 10 of the application is in the following manner: ## **“TC.81/1150, Attippara Village, Kazhakkuttom.”** It was on the basis of the version as put forth by the petitioner that, it is in “Kazhakkuttom” that, it was initially included to be considered; but the factual position was brought to light only in the course of field verification, which was conducted at a W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -6- subsequent stage strictly in conformity with Clause 11.2 of Ext.P14. It is also pointed out that, the respondents were acting not with any closed mind and immediately on receipt of representation from the petitioner, the matter was caused to be ascertained and confirmed once again, and it was accordingly that, even after issuance of Ext.P4, the respondent Corporation issued Ext.R1(a) communication to the concerned Village Officer, to ascertain whether the showroom offered by the petitioner was located within the notified location at 'Kazhakkuttom'. This was answered in negative by the Village Officer as borne by R1(b) and as such, there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the writ petition, submits the learned counsel. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on two decisions rendered by this Court, **Thomas v. Joseph** (1986 KLT 392) and **Nesamony v. State of Kerala** (1993 (2) KLT 868) so as to have an idea with regard to the meaning of the term 'locality'. The first decision was rendered with reference to the provisions of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control)Act, 1965, especially with regard to the mandate under the relevant proviso to Section 11(3) dealing with the ground for eviction of the rented premises for bonafide need. In W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -7- the case of the second decision, it is in respect of the premises to be provided in connection with the activities pursued with respect to the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. After going through the verdicts as above, this Court finds that the observations made therein are not attracted to the case in hand, in so far as the notification issued by way of Ext.P1 is quite categoric to the effect that, the showroom/godown has to be located at the exact place where it is notified/specified. This is more so, in view of the requirement to make effective distribution of LPG to all the consumers of the concerned area, whom the respondent Corporation is intending to serve. 9. During the course of hearing, this Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner has produced any document to show that the proposed showroom offered by the petitioner is situated in the **'locality' in 'Kazhakkuttom'** , which has not been answered in the positive and no document has been produced from the part of the petitioner in this regard, but for Ext.P10 Lease Deed, wherein a reference is made to 'Kazhakkuttom Sub District'. 'Kazhakkuttom Sub District' is having as many as 'five' Villages such as “ **Attippara, Kazhakkuttom, Pangappara,** W.P.C. No. 18149 of 2013 -8- **Menamkulam and Kadinamkulam.** The petitioner's building is situated in a different village, i.e., Attippara Village and as such, there is no case for the petitioner that the site is situated at least in the 'Kazhakkuttom' Village. Similarly, a reference to Ext.P9 chart produced by the petitioner shows that, in respect of the locations under serial Nos. 6 to 10 all the places are coming within the Pathanamthitta District. But the concerned location 'at Pathanamthitta' is only in respect of serial No. 10. Same is the position with Thrissur District and the location at Thrissur. 10. In the above circumstances, this Court finds that the case projected by the petitioner with reference to the existence of the site for showroom offered by the petitioner in Attippara Village referring to the area of jurisdiction in the Kazhakkuttom Sub District does not advance the case of the petitioner or tilt the balance in any manner, so as to call for interference of this Court. Accordingly, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of any merit. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.** kp/-