A SHANTHI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the first one in W. P. Nos. 126 of 2003 praying to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the selection made by the respondents 1 and 2 as displayed on the notice board of the office of the third respondent for selection of LPG Distributorship for Velur, Namakkal District pursuant to the interview held on 29. 10. 2003 as null and void being against the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India in no. P-39012/1/1999-IOC dated 9. 10. 2000 and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the selection of the petitioner for LPG Distributorship at velur (Namakkal District) under PH-W category.

(2.) W. P. No. 9818 of 2004 has been filed praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings vide Notice Board of the third respondent in the ref. No. NIL dated 29. 10. 2003 and quash the same insofar as placing the 4th and 5th respondents in Serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the merit list and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 herein to appoint the petitioner placed in Serial No. 3 in the list as Distributor for Indane Gas under physically Handicapped Category at Velur, Namakkal District.

(3.) LAYING emphasis on Note (2) above and producing the map showing the showroom and site of the petitioner, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that while giving particulars as required in the application form, the petitioner had given particulars and documentary proof regarding two sites for godown purpose and one showroom area in the main town of Velur, to locate showroom and godown and in fact, out of the two sites mentioned for godown purpose, one site is in the same area where the showroom has been shown and another vacant site for godown shown by the petitioner is also closer to showroom i. e. on the same National Highway with a short distance of 0. 7 k. m. and therefore the godown and site mentioned by the petitioner is located in a good place from the point of view of commercial angle as required by the respondents and since the petitioner has fully satisfied the said condition, she should have been given preference. At this juncture, the learned senior counsel would cite a judgment of this Court delivered in M. N. ABDUL RAHIM vs. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, IOC, MAWRKETING DIVISION, MADURAI AND THREE OTHERS reported in 1984 Writ L. R. 481 wherein a learned single Judge of this Court having found that the'consideration of facts by the I. O. C. authorities on the mistaken assumption with regard to the residence and address of the person selected'has quashed the selection of dealership.