The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the selection norms and criteria, and the consequences of not following them in the context of LPG distributorship.

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 22nd January 2011 in W.P. No.33430 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge directed the Appellate to accept the alternative site suggested by the Respondent for construction of LPG godown, in spite of the mandatory condition that the site once indicated would not be permitted to be changed at a later point of time.

The background facts:

2. The Appellant issued a Notification on 6th February 2008 calling for Application for appointment as LPG distributor at Kaveripattinam in the District of Krishnagiri under open category. The Appellant in the said Notification very clearly indicated that the Applicants, who readily have suitable godown/land for construction of godown for storage of filled LPG cylinder and shop/land for construction of shop for showroom for setting up of LPG Distributorship or have a firm commitment from the land owner for purchase/lease would be given marks. There was a further stipulation that after the selection, if the Applicant, for any reason, is unable to construct the godown duly approved by the Chief Controller of Explosives, on the land/down indicated in the Application, then the allotment of LPG Distributing made to him would automatically stand cancelled.

3. The Respondent submitted an Application on 10th March, 2008 for the subject location. The Respondent has given a declaration that he has taken a suitable land on lease as per lease agreement dated 5th March 2008. The Application submitted by the Respondent contains the Survey Number of the land as 125/IE, Ernamalli Village, measuring about 40 cents. The land was taken on lease for a period of fifteen years by way of a registered Lease Deed.

4. The Respondent was called for an interview by the Selection Committee and ultimately he was placed as No.1 in the panel, based on his performance in the interview and his capability to procure the land for LPG godown and showroom. The Appellant issued a Letter of Intent to the Respondent on 18th February 2010 directing him to commission the distributorship by constructing the godown in the land indicated in the Application. The Respondent after accepting the Letter of Intent submitted a representation to the Appellant on 30th April 2010 requesting for permission to substitute another land purchased by him subsequently. According to the Respondent, the property shown in his Application was subsequently sold in favour of third parties resulting in filing a Suit for injunction in O.S.No.71 of 2010 restraining the purchasers from dispossession him until the expiry of lease period.

5. The Application dated 30th April, 2010 was considered by the Appellant on merits and ultimately the request was rejected as per proceedings dated 29th May 2010. The Appellant informed the Respondent that he has been awarded marks in the selection of distributorship for LPG, based on the documents submitted. Since the property in Survey No.125/IE, Errahalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk was shown as the location of LPG godown, the Corporation would not be in a position to permit him to change the site subsequent to the selection. Accordingly, the Appellant informed the Respondent about their inability to consider his request.

6. The proceedings dated 29th May 2010 was challenged by the Respondent before the Writ Court in W.P.No.22320 of 2010.

7. Beforethe learned Single Judge the Respondent contended that the site shown by him earlier was sold to third parties and in view of the pending litigation, he would not be in a position to construct the godown there and to do business peacefully. It was further contended that the condition with regard to possession of land is not mandatory and the Selection Committee was required only to consider the capability to procure land. Therefore, the Corporation was not justified in rejecting his request for change of site.

8. The learned Single Judge by placing reliance on the judgment in K. Vinod Kumar v. S. Palan