Demonstration of minimum financial requirements as per the brochure and Selection Guidelines is essential for consideration for LPG distributorship under the RGGLV.

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned.

2. This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, dated 21.2.2014, made in W.P.No.15233 of 2011.

3. The petitioner, in W.P.No.15233 of 2011, is the appellant in the present Writ Appeal. The appellant herein had filed the Writ Petition praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for and quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent, dated 25.2.2011, and to direct the respondents to award LPG distributorship under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak [RGGLV] for Yelagiri Region, pursuant to the order of selection, made on 29.9.2010. The learned single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition stating that as per clause [f] of the brochure, an amount of Rs.2 lakhs must have been available in a Fixed Deposit, free from encumbrance, to show the financial status of the applicant. However, the appellant had not fulfilled the said condition for being considered for the awarding of the LPG Distributorship, as prayed for by him. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 21.2.2014, the petitioner in the Writ Petition, in W.P.No.15233 of 2011, had preferred the present Writ Appeal before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the appellant had submitted his application, dated 3.5.2010, for the awarding of the distributorship, along with all the necessary documents, to prove his financial capacity, to establish, maintain and operate the LGP outlet concerned. The documents submitted by the appellant include the statement of the bank account, relating to the State Bank of India, Yelagiri, and the Andhra Bank, Avadi. It had been further stated that the 2nd respondent, after verifying the documents submitted by the appellant and after conducting an interview, empanelled the appellant in Serial No.1, as he had secure 100, out of 100 marks. The 3rd respondent in the present Writ Appeal was in Serial No.2 with 86, out of 100 marks. However, the learned single Judge, without considering the merits of the matter, had dismissed the Writ Petition.

5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that the 2nd respondent had followed the evaluation criteria, for the awarding of marks, on the financial capacity of the appellant, following which, the appellant had been awarded the maximum of 50 marks. It had been stated that the appellant had been selected for the LPG distributorship at Yelagiri Region, in the draw held, on 29.9.2010. A confirmation order had also been presented to the appellant thereafter. During the field verification held, on 6.11.2010, the 2nd respondent had verified the genuineness of all the documents submitted by the appellant. Thereafter, it is not open to the 2nd respondent to raise a doubt, with regard to the genuineness of the documents submitted by the appellant, to prove his financial status. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have held that the appellant had satisfied all the necessary requirements, relating to the financial status, as per the criteria stipulated in the brochure. It had been further submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have seen that immediately on coming to know that the candidature of the appellant was not being processed further, the appellant had submitted a representation, along with a copy of the Pass Book, relating to the Savings Bank Account of his wife in Vellakottai Primary Cooperative Bank. Further, the learned single Judge ought to have noted that on 10.3.2011, the appellant had submitted the bank account statement of the Savings Bank Account of his wife in Dhanalakshmi Bank Bank, Vellore Branch. The learned single Judge had failed to note that the 2nd respondent had awarded distributorship in favour of the 3rd respondent, rejecting the application of