This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner’s application by order dated 15.09.2009 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to consider her application for HPCL dealership at Shabad, Ranga Reddy District.

The petitioner is one of the applicants for appointment as dealer for running a retail outlet at Shabad, Ranga Reddy District in pursuance of the advertisement issued on 08.06.2009 by respondent No.1. One Smt. G. Sushmitha, who is impleaded as respondent No.3 at her instance, also applied for the said dealership. Through letter dated 15.09.2009, respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that her application was not in conformity with the conditions of the advertisement, as she has not submitted a copy of marriage certificate or an affidavit in support of her maiden name and name after marriage along with the application and that therefore her application was treated as invalid and disqualified. Assailing the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In her affidavit, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that in her educational certificates, her name was shown as Swapnik and after her marriage her name was changed as Swapna. She also pleaded that she filed a notarized affidavit dated 17.06.2009 regarding change of her name and in support thereof, she filed a copy of the said affidavit.

This Court, while issuing notice before admission on 10.11.2009, directed the respondents not to issue letter of intent in respect of the dealership in question.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is inter alia averred therein that the petitioner has not submitted either marriage certificate or an affidavit in support of her maiden name and name after marriage, as required in the advertisement. This counter affidavit was received by the counsel for the petitioner in February, 2010. Neither reply affidavit has been filed controverting the abovementioned averments nor the petitioner has filed proof of her sending the marriage certificate or affidavit to the respondents at least after receiving the counter affidavit.

The impleaded respondent in her affidavit stated that she was declared as successful candidate for awarding dealership, that the petitioner obtained interim direction behind her back by raising false allegations and that on account of the interim order, the Corporation has withheld issuance of letter of intent.

None of the parties have filed a copy of the advertisement in pursuance of which the petitioner and respondent No.3 have filed their applications. However, learned counsel for all the parties conceded that Note No.3, which is mentioned in the impugned letter, in pursuance of which the applications contained the following note.

“Married women applicant with change of name after marriage should submit a copy of the marriage certificate or an affidavit in support of the maiden name and name after marriage.”

In paragraph 5 of her affidavit, the petitioner mentioned as under:

“It is submitted that in the 10th Class certificate and till my marriage in all the records my name is shown as Swapnik. After marriage, my husband has changed my name as Swapna. I have filed a notarized affidavit dated 17.06.2009 with regard to change of name. Apart from this, I have filed my passport which stands in my changed name i.e., Swapna.”

As noted above, the petitioner has also filed the purported notarized affidavit dated 17.06.2009. At the hearing, this Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner has proof of filing this affidavit. The learned counsel replied in negative. In this writ petition, the petitioner filed a copy of the letter addressed to the South Central Zone Manager of respondent No.1 Corporation while enclosing her application. She has indicated in the said letter that she was enclosing as many as 13