Judicial review is permissible only when mala fide, unreasonable and arbitrary action is seen.

(WP No. 4844 of 2001: Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Mandamus as stated therein WP No. 11066 of 2001 : Petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.)

Common Order:

The petitioner has filed WP No. 4844 of 2001 praying for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from issuing LPG Distributorship for HP Gas in Tharamangalam locality, Salem District in open (women) category list to the fourth respondent which was called and advertised on 28.08.2000 by the second respondent without following the usual and normal procedures.

2. The prayer in WP No. 11066 of 2001 is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records from the respondents 1 to 3 in respect of the file relating to issue of LPG Distributorship for HP Gas in Tharamangalam locality, Salem District in open (women) category list which was called and advertised on 28.08.2000 and quash the impugned order passed by the third respondent herein by order dated 22.11.2 000 relating to the above said subject matter and grant the same distributorship to the petitioner herein.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The second respondent/Petroleum Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'corporation', has issued notification dated 19.05.1998 inviting applications for award of LPG Distributorship of HPC Gas for seven locations under various categories and the petitioner submitted her application for allotment of Distributorship under open (women) category list for Tharamangalam, Salem District. Thereafter, the corporation did not take any steps for two years and issued another notification dated 28.08.2000 and the petitioner submitted another application on 09.10.2000. According to the petitioner, she is financially sound and experienced in explosive materials as well as transport, owns lands suitable for construction of godown at Taramangalam thereby satisfied the qualifications required by the Corporation. On 01.11.2000, the third respondent sent a letter calling upon the petitioner to attend an interview on 22.11.2000 and accordingly she attended the interview and the third respondent selected the petitioner, fourth respondent and one M. Kamalakanna. Thereafter, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the third respondent, hence, she sent a letter dated 10.02.2001 requesting the third respondent to award the LPG distributorship in her favour. On 17.02.2001, the corporation sent a reply stating that the selection for the LPG dealership is completed and letter of intent was also issued to the fourth respondent. Immediately, the petitioner sent a letter on 19.12.2001 to the third respondent requesting to give the order of rejection, for which, the third respondent has sent a reply dated 28.02.2001 stating that after publication of merit list, no correspondence, whatsoever is entertainable. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of awarding dealership, the respondents 2 and 3 herein ought to have conducted field survey for all the candidates, but conducted only in respect of the fourth respondent ignoring the usual procedure.

4. The corporation has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioner as mentioned below:-

Originally, the Corporation has issued a notification on 19.05.1998 and in response to the same various applications were received, scrutinised and submitted to the third respondent for conducting interviews, however, the selection process for new dealership was kept in abeyance by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. Again, as per the directions issued by the Ministry, notification was issued on 28.08.2000. The third respondent conducted interview and selected three candidates including the petitioner and fourth respondent and as per the directions issued by the third respondent, field investigation report in respect of the candidate placed number one in the merit panel