K VINODKUMAR Vs. S PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, in this appeal put in issue the order of the learned Judge dated 18.2.2003 made in W.P.No.322 of 2001, wherein the selection list of the 3rd respondent dated 16.12.2000 for the distributor dealership of L.P.G for Palladam area has been set aside and the authorities concerned were permitted to proceed with fresh selection. In the writ petition the first respondent, one of the applicants for the grant of distributorship of L.P.G. for Palladam assailed the selection of list of the third respondent awarding more marks to the appellant besides two others, the 4th and 5th respondents, as arbitrary and against clause (v) of the notification by which applications were called for, for the grant of distributorship.

(2.) The learned Judge on facts and on interpretation of clause (v) of the notification found that the selection list made by the 3rd respondent lacked transparency in awarding marks in the sense that there was no decision or findings with respect to the basis for awarding marks and ultimately found that the procedure followed by the 3rd respondent was contrary to the direction issued by this Court in the case of V.CHANDRAN vs. OIL SELECTION BOARD MADRAS (AIR 1996 MADRAS 87) and set aside the selection list. The appellant, who was awarded with 253 marks in the selection list now filed the appeal.

(3.) The one and only point that has been argued by Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel for the appellant is that Clause (v) of the notification does not require the applicants to give details about the land owned or possessed that would be given for distributorship at the time of submitting the application and it would be enough if the selectee offered the land for distributorship within two months of selection. He further contended that the appellant had not claimed any preference under clause (v) and had been selected on his own other merits. Hence the order made in W.P.No.322 of 2001 has to be set aside by allowing this appeal. He placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in CHINMOY SARKAR & OTHERS VS. MD. SHANIAT HOSSAIN & OTHERS (AIR 1990 CALCUTTA 412).