T. PRASANNAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed praying for quashing Ext. P7 and for a declaration that the first respondent ought not have entertained the application of the 4th respondent. Petitioner is also seeking consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE controversy in this writ petition is in relation to the appointment of an authorised whole sale distributor (AWD) in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Ext. P8 is an advertisement issued by the second respondent inviting application for the appointment of an AWD. One of the requirements was that solvency certificate in original should be produced along with application. It was also specified that the applications which were not accompanied with the prescribed documents will not be considered.

(3.) THE applicants were called for an interview on 16.6.2004 by the second respondent where seven of them appeared. It is submitted that the 4th respondent produced a solvency certificate on 16.6.2004. On conclusion process of selection, Ext. P1 order was issued by the second respondent granting licence to the petitioner as AWD. Aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, the 4th respondent filed Ext. P2 appeal before the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by Ext. P4. Later the 4th respondent filed Ext. P5 revision before the first respondent and by Ext. P7, the revision was allowed holding that the 4th respondent was the most eligible candidate since the solvency certificate offered by her for Rs. 12,81,375 was the maximum. It is challenging Ext. P7 and for other reliefs that this writ petition is filed.