IPE JACOB v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited & Ors.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA** **THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 13230 of 2013** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **IPE JACOB, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O JACOB THOMAS, KACHIRAKAL,** **PERUMATTIKKATTIL HOUSE, VENNIKULAM P.O., MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR. JACOB THOMAS, S/O SKARIA THOMAS, RESIDING AT KACHIRAKKAL HOUSE, PERUMATTIKKATTIL HOUSE, VENNIKULAM P.O., MALLAPPALY** **TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689544.** **BY ADVS. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.P.J.VINOD JOSEPH SRI.K.A.MOHAMED HARIS** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, ( A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE),** **REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE, 17 JAMSHEDJI TATAROAD, MUMBAI - 400020.** ## **2. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,** **HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, KOCHI LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, SEAPORT- AIRPORT ROAD, IRUMPANAM P.O, KOCHI 682309, KERALA.** **3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF OIL & NATURAL GASES, NEW DELHI-110001.** ## ***ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED** ## **R4. RENUKA BHAI.V.S.** **W/O. RAVI VARMA THAMPURAN, NARIYANICKAMANNIL KOICKAL, EZHUMATOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITA DISTRICT-689586.** **WP(C).No. 13230 of 2013 (C)** ***ADDITIONAL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/08/2014 IN I.A. NO. 10278/14.** **R1,R2 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASG OF INDIA R4 BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **RVS.** ## **WP(C).No. 13230 of 2013 (C)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22-08-2011 BY THE PETITIONER FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP AT EZHUMATTOOR, IN PAHTANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER REF NO KLRO/GVK/LPG/ 12756053006 DATED 30-12-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO 81/12/I OF VENNIKULAM SUB REGISTRY DATED 12-01-2012 EXECUTED BY MR. JACOB THOMAS IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO 1340/11 OF VENNIKULAM SUB REGISTRY DATED 22-08-2011 EXECUTED BY THE MR. JACOB THOMAS IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESULT OF DRAW DATED 04-10-2012 CONDUCTED AT THE CONFERENCE HALL OF DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA FOR THE EMPANELLMENT OF THE LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP AT EZHUMATTOOR, IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ON GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULAR LPG DISTRIBUTOR. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 31-08-2011 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF MR. JACOB THOMAS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KLRO/GVK/LPG/12756053 006 DATED 05/08/2013. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. 411/2013 DATED 20/08/2013 ISSUED BY THE THELLIYOOR VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KLRO/GVK/LPG/21030915/RTI/ACT. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO. C6-2256/13 DATED 24/08/2013 ISSUED BY PURAMATTOM PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 19/10/2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN VARGHESE CHACKO & PETITIONER JACOB THOMAS. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07/09/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 26/01/2014. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO. C6-2256/13 DATED 24/08/2013 ISSUED BY THE PURAMATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE PAID RECEIPT NO. 21 DATED 24/08/2013 BY THE PURAMATTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** **WP(C).No. 13230 of 2013 (C)** - **EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 606/13 DATED 05/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PURAMATTOM ISSUED ALONG WITH THE LOCATION SKETCH.** - **EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.A4-5451/13/K.DIS. DATED 28/11/2013 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY TALUK.** - **EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH DATED 24/09/2013 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PURAMATTOM.** - **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF LOCATION SKETCH NO. 141/13 DATED 24/09/2013 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, THELLIYOOR.** - **EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT DESCRIPTION ABOUT THE EZHUMATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUBLISHED IN THE STATE GOVERNMENT WEB SITE.** - **EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 30/07/2011.** - **EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 22/06/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER CERTIFYING THAT PETITIONER'S SON MASTER JEAN JACOB IS STUDYING IN BETHANY ACADEMY ICSE PUBLIC SCHOOL AT VENNIKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P25 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER CERTIFYING THAT PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER KUMARI CELINE SUSAN IPE IS STUDYING IN BETHANY ACADEMY ICSE PUBLIC SCHOOL AT VENNIKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P26 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF FAMILY RATION CARD OF THE PETITIONER'S FAMILY.** - **EXHIBIT P27 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BPL LIST IN EzhUMATTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUBLISHED IN WEBSITE OF CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE.** - **EXHIBIT P28 TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE ON UNIFIED GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF LPG DISTRIBUTORS.** - **EXHIBIT P29 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. KLRO/GBK/LPG DATED 14/02/2018 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P30 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE WEBSITE PAGES OF LSGD DEPARTMENT OF KERALA STATE RELATED TO THE RANNY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** - **EXHIBIT P31 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 28/02/2018 ALONG WITH COPIES OF COUNTER FOILS OF POSTAL ORDERS AND POSTAL RECEIPT.** **WP(C).No. 13230 of 2013 ©** **EXHIBIT P32 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP SHOWING EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE OFFICE AND EZHUMATTOOR VILLAGE PANCHAYATH OFFICE.** - **EXHIBIT P33 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILED BY ONE SRI. THOMAS JACOB, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE PURAMATTOM PANCHAYATH AS PER LETTER NO. KLRO/GBK/LPG DATED 14/02/2018 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE LETTER.** **EXHIBIT P34 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/03/*2016 BY THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE RANNY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/05/2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, EZHAMATTUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ADVERTISED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 30/07/2011.** **EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/01/2013 IN WP(C) NO.1308/2013.** **EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30/01/2014 ISSUED BY THE WRIT PETITION.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **RVS. 02/08/2018** ## **P.V.ASHA J.** **-----------------------------------W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 -------------------------------------** Dated this the 26[th] day of July, 2018 ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner challenges the rejection of his candidature for distributorship of Liquid Petroleum Gas. Pursuant to Ext.P22/Ext.R4(a) notification published on 30.07.2011, petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application on 22.08.2011 for distributorship in LPG at Ezhumattoor in Pathanamthitta District under open category. Along with his application, he had furnished all the documents which were required to be furnished. According to the petitioner, on acceptance of his application, the second respondent, as per Ext.P2 letter dated 30.12.2012 directed him to produce registered lease agreement for 15 years in respect of his godown and show room. He thereupon W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 2 submitted Ext.P3 lease agreement dated 12.01.2012 registered in Vennikulam Sub Registry. Thereafter on 04.10.2012, petitioner was declared as the successful candidate, on the basis of a draw held from among eligible applicants and he was empanelled for the distributorship at Ezhumattoor, as per Ext.P5 notification. 2. It is stated that even after the verification of documents and site inspection and completion of all formalities by the petitioner for starting the godown and showroom, the letter of intent was not issued. Aggrieved by the delay being caused, petitioner filed this writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner received Ext.P8 letter dated 05.08.2013, informing him that his candidature was rejected because on field verification of the information furnished by him in his application, it was found that the land W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 3 offered by him for the showroom in Sy.No.145/1 was not in the advertised location. The writ petition was thereafter amended incorporating challenge against Ext.P8 letter and producing Exts.P9 to P13 also, alleging that distributorship was granted to one Mahima gas Agencies in Kumbanad, which is not functioning in Kumbanad and stating that he owns other lands on lease, producing Ext.P12 lease deed dated 19.10.2012. He has produced Exts.P14 to P22 documents along with I.A. No.1499 of 2013, stating that another draw for selection for distributorship was scheduled on 30.01.2014 as per Ext.P14, stating that he is the owner of a building in Puramattam Grama Panchayat, along with the tax receipt issued in 2013 for the building, possession certificate issued by the Village Officer, Puramattam, stating that Mahima agency Kumbanad is functioning in Puramattam village. Ext.P21 is a description of Ezhumattoor W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 4 Grama Panchayat stated to have been published in the website, according to which the Panchayat functions within the area of Ezhumattoor and Thelliyur Villages and the office of the Panchayat is in Thelliyur. Ext.P22 notification inviting application for distributorship was produced along with I.A. No.1581 of 2014. Along with I.A. No. 19071 of 2014, petitioner produced Ext.P27 list of BPL families issued by the Civil Supplies Department, stating that the additional 4[th] respondent is not eligible for distributorship. 3. Petitioner has also got a case that the respondents have adopted a different approach while selecting Mahima Gas agencies as distributors at Kumbanadu and in selecting the distributor at Ranni; producing Exts.P30 and P31, along with I.A. No.4916 of 2018, petitioner stated that the distributorship given at Ranni, based on the very same advertisement W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 5 in Ext.P22 is not in Ranni but in Pazhavangadi Panchayath. Petitioner has produced Ext.P33 letter of the Vice President of that Panchayat, along with I.A. No.13445 of 2018 stating that there is no gas agency in that Panchayat. 4. Petitioner has also produced the Google map of Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat as Ext.P32 along with I.A.No.13445 of 2018, and asserts that the land offered by him is within the Panchayath and within the Sub District. It is stated that the location is near to Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat office, Edakkad Public market, Bus stop, Thelliyoor Village office, Vennikulam Sub Registry Office and Thelliyoor Primary Health Centre etc., as seen from Ext.P21 details in the official website and Ext.P32 Google map. It is therefore asserted that the land offered by him is in Ezhumattoor itself. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P28 guidelines, which defines location in clause 1.9. W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 6 5. According to the petitioner, he had fulfilled all the conditions as prescribed in the notification and in Ext.P6 guidelines. According to him, the showroom is in Ezhamattoor itself and the respondents had got the credentials verified on 22.03.2013, but they did not inform the petitioner of any deficiency in his applications or the documents or properties covered by Exts.P3 or P4 documents. He was therefore waiting for the letter of intent after spending lakhs of rupees for setting up the business and it is stated that petitioner has got several other properties adjacent to the same which could have been utilized for the godown or show room and therefore, he cannot be denied the distributorship. It is also stated that before rejection of the application, the first respondent did not give him an opportunity to rectify the defects, if any and that no notice was issued to him for rectification before W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 7 rejecting his candidature. 6. Petitioner's case is that the land covered by Ext.P3 for the show room is very near to Panchayat Office, Ezhumattoor and Village Office at Thelliyoor and would be beneficial to the general public of Ezhumattoor, Thelliyur, Vennikulam and nearby areas. It is stated that the Godown is at Thodiyoor, which is a remote area and is within the permissible distance from the Godown and Ext.P4 lease agreements are having all characteristics required in Ext.P1 and are in Ezhumattoor. 7. The additional 4[th] respondent has filed a counter affidavit after getting himself impleaded. She had also submitted application for distributorship at Ezhumattoor, pursuant to Ext.R4(a)/Ext.22 notification. She was also found to be an eligible candidate and was invited for draw of lot held on 04.10.2002, in which petitioner was W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 8 selected. He thereafter conducted inquiry and found that petitioner was not entitled to participate in the draw. She filed W.P.(C) No.1308 of 2013 challenging the selection when the first respondent filed a statement stating that the veracity of the details mentioned by the applicants in the application would be verified by field inspection and in the event of any information being found to be false, selection would be cancelled. As per Ext.R4(a) judgment, the writ petition was disposed of, directing to complete the verification proceedings and communicate the position with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner as well as the 4[th] respondent before finalization of the selection. Ext.P8 was issued thereafter. The 4[th] respondent was thereafter informed as per Ext.R4(c) letter dated 30.01.2014 that he was selected, on the basis of redraw held on 30.01.2014. It is stated that further W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 9 proceedings have not been held on account of the interim order passed by this Court. The 4[th] respondent stated that Ext.P3 lease agreement, which the petitioner produced was one executed on 12.01.2012, subsequent to his application submitted on 22.08.2011, contrary to the guidelines in Ext.P6, which provides that the applicant should own or have lease over the property on the date of application. Moreover the property covered under Ext.P4 was not in the advertised locality. She therefore stated that she is the person most eligible. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that in the application submitted by petitioner, the land provided for distributorship for both the showroom as well as the godown was in the same Re-Sy.No.145/1. As per the information he had furnished, he was found eligible and selected by draw of lots; but while W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 10 verifying the veracity of the information furnished by petitioner, in his application, it was found that land provided by the petitioner for the showroom and godown was in a different Grama Panchayat i.e., Puramattom Grama Panchayat; therefore the respondents sought for a clarification from the Panchayat. The Secretary of the Panchayat issued Ext.R1(a) letter stating that the property mentioned in the application of the petitioner is in Puramattam Grama Panchayat and therefore Ext.P8 letter was issued to the petitioner rejecting his candidature. Explaining the procedure followed after opening the applications received, it is stated that scrutiny of the applications is made by two officers nominated for the same; in case any document is not seen attached, applicants would be asked to produce those documents within 21 days; a list of eligible candidates is thereafter prepared for draw. Thereafter draw of lots W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 11 of all eligible candidates is conducted in presence of State Govt. Officials or MP or MLA, etc. The candidate selected in the draw would be the empanelled candidate; but letter of intent would be given only after being found eligible after conducting final scrutiny by field verification of the credentials. It is stated that petitioner had not produced the registered lease deed along with the application and therefore Ext.P2 letter was sent to him asking him to produce the lease deed for the land mentioned in the application. Petitioner thereupon produced Ext.P3 lease deed dated 12.01.2012, which was executed subsequent to the date of his application and with respect to a land which was not mentioned in his application. It is stated that he was found eligible for the draw of lots only because of the information he had furnished in the application and Ext.P4 lease deed which was executed W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 12 on 22.08.2011 as on the date of application. But his selection in the draw alone would not confer any right on him to get the letter of intent issued to him. In the field verification, it was found that the land offered by him as per Ext.P4 was not in the advertised location and it was found to be in Puramattam Grama Panchayat, as stated in Ext.R1(a) letter dated 13.05.2013 of the Secretary of Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat. In the case of Mahima Gas agencies, Kumbanad, it is stated that it was commissioned under the Marketing Plan 1993-94 and requirement in the guidelines of 1993-94 was to have the show room in a prominent location within the distributorship area of operation and the godown site was required to be as close as possible. It is stated that the area of operation of that gas agencies included the neighboring Panchayats. It is stated that the guidelines of 1993-94 when number of W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 13 distributorships was very less cannot be compared to those for the selection in question governed by Ext.P6 guidelines. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 points out that petitioner has furnished a declaration to the effect that the information furnished by him are correct and in case, it is found incorrect on field verification, he would be in-eligible. Therefore when the land offered by the petitioner covered by Ext.P4 document was not in the advertised location namely Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat but only in Puramattom Grama Panchayat, as evident from Ext.R1(a), he has become ineligible. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in **Mahabir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others** [1990 (3) SCC 752] and the judgment of the Kolkata High Court in **Swapnil Singh v. Bharat** W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 14 **Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Others** [A.S.T.Nos. 158 of 2013 & 93 of 2013] in support of the contention that once the petitioner was selected, if at all any defects were found he should have been granted an opportunity to rectify the defects, in fairness to be adopted by public limited companies/state. Learned Senior counsel also relied on the the meaning of the 'locality' Law Lexicon in which it is given as ## follows: “Locality, the question of notifying the locality might probably arise when all the lands in a village are sought to be acquired. Otherwise the word 'locality' is a word of such indefinite import that it is difficult to conceive of any locality in any particular village being notified for acquisition. Therefore when a locality in the sense of a village or perhaps a group of villages is notified for acquisition any person interested in any land in that locality would be entitled to be heard under S.5A, _Navneet Ram Batra v. State of Uttar Pradesh_ - AIR 1975 SC 2144 (2146): (1975) 2 SCC 727:(1976) 1 SCR 826. [Land Acquisition Act (10 of 1894), S.5A].” ## 11. Therefore, it was argued that the documents W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 15 produced by him were sufficient to prove his eligibility and that the land offered by him by way of Exts.P3 and P4 were within the location. 12. On the other hand the learned Senior counsel for the 4[th] respondent as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C).No.14586 of 2014, the judgment affirming it in W.A.No.171 of 2016, judgments in W.A.No.276 of 2014 and W.A.1607/2011 and argued that the first respondent is the best judge to decide the location for a distributor in LPG. 13. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on both sides and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for official respondents. Ext.P8 rejection is on the ground that the land offered by the petitioner, as per the information furnished in his application is W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 16 not in the location advertised. Ext.P1 is the application submitted by petitioner. The information to be furnished in respect of the land for the proposed godown and show room are to be furnished against Item Nos.9 and 10 respectively of Ext.P1 application. Against Item Nos.9 as well as 10, petitioner furnished the very same details for the land i.e., in “Re-Sy.No.145/1” with the address at “Kachirakal, Vennikulam”, with the date of registration of document as 22.08.2011. In support of this, he had produced Ext.P4 lease deed. Thereafter when the 2[nd] respondent, as per Ext.P2 letter directed him to produce the registered lease deed for 15 years for godown and showroom, he produced Ext.P3 lease deed, which was executed on 12.01.2012, in respect of land having an extent of 4 Ares and 5 Sq.mtrs in ReSy.No.63/3 in Thelliyoor Village, Ezhumattoor Panchayat, Vennikulam Sub District in Mallappally W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 17 Taluk in Pathanamthitta District. As per Ext.P6 guidelines, on the selection of regular LPG distributorship after 1[st] October, 2010, Clause vi and vii under paragraph 7 reads as follows: “vi. Should own a plot of land of adequate size _(within 15 km from municipal/town/village limits of the location offered in the same State)_ for construction of godown for storage of 8000 Kg of LPG in cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage godown **as on the date of application** . As per Gas Cylinder Rules 2004, the floor area of the storage shed for storing 8000 Kg LPG in cylinders should be 80 sq metres. The length of the storage shed should not be more than 1.5 times of width of storage shed. There should be clear minimum safety distance of 7 meters between storage shed and the boundary wall/fencing. The plot of land with minimum dimension of 26.15 metres by 27 metre is adequate. It should be freely accessible through all weather motorable approach road (public road or private road of the applicant connecting to the public road) and should be plain, in one contiguous plot, free from live overhead power transmission or W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 18 telephone lines. Canals/Drainage/Nellahs should not be passing through the plot. The land for construction of LPG godown should also meet the norms of various statutory bodies such as PWD/Highway authorities/Town and Country Planning Department etc. In case an applicant has more than one suitable plot for construction of godown for storage of minimum 8000 Kg of cylinders or ready LPG cylinder storage godown as on the date of application, the details of the same can also be provided in the application. Vii. Own a suitable shop of minimum size 3 metres by 4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for construction of shop of minimum size 3 metres by 4.5 metre at the advertised location or locality as specified in the advertisement. It should be easily accessible to general public through a suitable approach road. **In case an applicant has more than one shop of minimum** size 3 metre by 4.5 metre in dimension or a plot of land for construction of shop of minimum size 3 metre by 4.5 metre at the advertised location or locality as specified in the advertisement **as on the date of application** , the details of the same can also be provided in the application.” W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 19 (empahsis supplied) 14. Under Clause 7.1.vi as well as vii., the applicant should own the plot for godown as well as for showroom as on the date of application, details of which has to be provided in the application. Therefore Ext.P3 lease deed and property covered by it cannot be accepted as the deed is executed in January 2012, subsequent to the date of application Ext.P1. 15. Ext.P4 is the lease deed produced along with the application and the only document produced by petitioner which is executed before or as on the date of his application. In Ext.R1(a) letter, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat stated that Sy.No.145/1 is not included in Thelliyoor or Ezhumattoor Village of Ezhumattoor Grama Panchayat and it is situated in Puramattom Grama Panchayat. The first respondent has after conducting site inspection W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 20 and verification with the concerned Panchayat has come to the conclusion that the land in Sy No.115/1 is not in the location. Therefore the said decision is not liable to be interfered with by this Court based on Ext.P21 details furnished by the petitioner himself where Puramattam is described a Panchayat adjacent to the western boundary of Ezhumattoor Panchayat. 16. The fact that petitioner or his relatives have got other properties or that they belong to the category of APL cannot be considerations for grant of distributorship, in the absence of any provision for the same in Ext.P6 guidelines or in any other rule or order. When petitioner has not furnished the details of any other properties in Ext.P1 application, as directed in clause 7 of Ext.P6 guidelines he cannot now raise any valid claim based on any such ownership. W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 21 17. The distributorship granted to Mahima agencies or to the agency at Ranni, if at all it is not within the location, as alleged by the petitioner, would not confer any right on petitioner to compel the respondents 1 or 2 to award distributorship to the petitioner otherwise than in accordance with the provisions in Ext.P6. The meaning of location in law lexicon will not help the petitioner even in the light of Ext.P21 document. The definition of location in Ext.P32 guidelines will not apply in the case of petitioner as it is stated that it is applicable to selection from 2016 onwards. 18. Moreover in the light of the judgments in W.P.(C).No.14586 of 2014, which is affirmed in the judgment in W.A.No.171 of 2014, where the Division Bench held that when the LPG distributorship was invited for the location at Mananthavady, the petitioner cannot insist that the distributor can W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 22 establish his showroom any of the areas coming under the Mananthavady Grama panchayath. 19. Similarly, in the judgment dated 20.10.2016 in W.A.No.276 of 2014 this Court while considering the question relating to distributorship in the location “Kazhakkuttom” observing that notification does not provide that the showroom can be anywhere in Kazhakkuttom Sub District, the claim of the appellant having land in Attippara, was repelled, observing that merely because the Attipara village comes within the area of Kazhakkuttom Sub District in Thiruvananthapuram District Attipra cannot be considered as part of Kazhakkuttom. It was held that respondent company is to best judge as to how service can be made more effective including by selecting the proper locations for the proposed showroom and it is purely a matter of policy and not liable to be interfered with by this Court especially when there W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 23 is no allegation of any _malafide_ on the part of the respondents. 20. In the judgment in W.A.No.1607/2011 also this Court while considering the question of dealership of petrol pump, held that it is for the company to take into account the requirement of the outlets based on the vehicular traffic on the road and the locations of existing outlets. 21. Though the learned Senior Counsel relied on the **Mahabir Auto Stores** 's case (supra) and argued that rejection of the application of petitioner is vitiated by malice in law or that there is lack of fairness in action, I do not find any material to come to such a conclusion. 22. The respondents have rejected the application after finding that the land offered is not in the location, following the procedure prescribed in Ext.P6, I do not find any unfairness in W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 24 the action of the respondents. The initial selection of petitioner was subject to further verification. Therefore there is no malice or unfairness. Acting in the reliance placed by the Senior Counsel on the judgment of KolKotha High Court in **Swapnil Singh** 's case (supra) also is misplaced as it is already reversed by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 08.09.2015 in Civil Appeals Nos. 6928-6929 of 2015. 23. In **Karthika G.V Union of India & others** [2018 (2) KHC 979], this Court has held that the mandatory stipulations in the guidelines have to be complied with while submitting the application. That judgment is squarely applicable to this case. Petitioner who furnished details of land in Resurvey No.115/1 in Puramattam village cannot be heard to contend that his property is in Ezhumattoor or that he should have been given another opportunity before rejection. Ext.P6 guidelines or Ext.P22 notification W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 25 do not provide for any such opportunity, rather it insist to furnish particulars in the application itself. Therefore he cannot have any claim for distributorship, as per the provisions contained in Sub clause vi and vii of Clause 7 of Ext.P6. 24. As rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel, when the land offered by the petitioner in Ext.P1 is found to be in another location, the application is liable to be rejected, based on his own declaration in Clause 14 of Ext.P1. Ext.P28 guidelines in which the first respondent has defined the Town, Village, City as well as location, it is not applicable to the present case, as it is specifically stated that it would be applicable for the selection from 2016 onwards. 25. Apart from some vogue allegations of malice in law, there is no allegation of _malafides_ as against the respondents 1 or 2. W.P.(C).No.13230 of 2013 26 In the above circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason warranting interference of this Court. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- **P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.** AS