RAJESHWARI Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P.1737/2009 filed by the petitioner to quash Annexures - F and H, upon consideration was allowed on 23.01.2009 and the impugned communications therein were quashed. However, liberty was reserved to respondents 1 & 2, to issue notice to the petitioner, hear and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The said order has attained finality. Respondents 1 & 2 having taken a decision contrary to the interest of the petitioner, seeking quashing of a letter dated 10.03.2009 as at Annexure -L and another letter dated 12.03.2009 as at Annexure -M, W.P.No.7503/2009 was filed and the same was disposed of on 16.11.2009 vide Order at Annexure -P. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed W.A.No.156/2010. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and Annexures - A, B & J to W.P.No.1737/2009 were quashed and the official respondents were directed to strictly adhere to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1737/2009 vide Annexure -J. The process was directed to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Petitioner was notified on 28.05.2010 vide Annexure -R to appear in person before the 2nd respondent for a personal hearing and to submit her grievance on 10.06.2010. The petitioner submitted a representation as per Annexure -S. Respondents 1 and 2 having held that the grievance of the petitioner is not established and the matter having been closed as per the communication dated 15.07.2010 vide Annexure -A, this writ petition has been filed to quash the said decision and also the consequential communications dated 26.07.2010 vide Annexures - B and C.

(2.) SRI Subramanya R., learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Order as at Annexure -J and the Judgment as at Annexure -Q having become final, respondents 1 and 2 have acted arbitrarily and illegally in the matter of selection of respondent No.4 as the LPG distributor for Channarayapatna and in issuing the communications as at Annexures - A & B. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not issued with any show cause notice indicating the reasons for deletion of her name from the merit list and in the circumstances, interference is warranted.

(3.) SRI Dayanand S. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the 4th respondent, the selected candidate, by referring to the statement of objections filed on 14.09.2011 submitted that in pursuance of the Order as at Annexure -B, the 4th respondent is carrying on the business of distribution of LPG and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.