The withdrawal of funds within the specified period rendered the petitioner ineligible for distributorship, and the court emphasized the flexibility of the rules of natural justice.

1. This writ petition is filed challenging the letter of the 1st respondent dated 11.02.2010 addressed to the petitioner and for a direction to the 1st respondent to award the LPG Distributorship at Chetpet, Tiruvannamalai District under open category to the petitioner.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 06.02.2008, the 1st respondent herein invited applications for award of Distributorship of Indane Gas at Chetpet Town in Tiruvannamalai District under open category. Pursuant to the said invitation, the petitioner submitted his application on 10.03.2008 and the same was received by the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent through his letter dated 26.06.2009 called the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent for an interview on 28.07.2009. As per the guidelines of the Company, the selection power is vested with the 2nd respondent. On 28.07.2009, the petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent for the interview and on 29.07.2009, the results were published by the 2nd respondent, in which the petitioner secured 90.00 marks and was empanelled as first. The 3rd respondent who had secured 86.33 marks was empanelled as second. According to the petitioner, within 10 days from the date of interview, the committee conducted a field investigation. As per the guidelines, if any candidate is aggrieved with the results of the committee, he may submit his representation within a period of 30 days from the date of interview. After the first field investigation, the committee conducted a second field investigation on 10.09.2009.

3. The petitioner would further submit that the 1st respondent published a second empanelled result on 17.11.2009 based on the representation of the 3rd respondent, in which also, the petitioner was empanelled as first, whereas the 3rd respondent was awarded 3 marks in addition to 86.33; thereby, in the second result her marks were increased to 89.33, even then, the 3rd respondent was in the second place. It is the grievance of the petitioner that when he was eagerly awaiting the Letter of Intent (LOI), all of a sudden, the 1st respondent sent a letter dated 11.02.2010 declaring the petitioner as an ineligible candidate for award of L.P.G. Distributorship. According to the petitioner, the said letter is impugned in the present writ petition and that in the impugned letter, the 1st respondent has stated that during the field investigation conducted by the committee on 10.09.2009, it was observed that he has withdrawn money from his S.B. Account No.764753455, Indian Bank, Vandavasi on 27.05.2009, which is less than 3 months from the date of application and before interview. Hence, he was declared as an ineligible candidate. Before issuing the impugned letter, the 1st respondent did not issue any show cause notice. Hence, the petitioner had no opportunity to explain the default. Having no other alternative, he has approached this court.

4. In the counter filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short IOC) is a Government of India Company incorporated under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and a Public Sector Enterprise of the Government of India under the administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, and it is engaged in marketing petroleum products through retail network and has been enjoying the market leadership. According to the respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable and it is devoid of merits on both factual and legal aspects, as the issues raised involve disputed question of facts and therefore, the same can be decided only before a Civil Court after letting in evidence of the issues concerned and the petitioner cannot seek a remedy in this matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, there cannot be any re-appreciation or reappraisal of relevant material factors, relative qualifications and evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceeding under Arti