T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

This writ appeal by the third respondent in W.P.(MD) No.13063 of 2011 is directed against the order, dated 03.08.2012, by which the writ petition filed by the first respondent/writ petitioner was allowed and the appellant/third respondent was held to be disqualified for being granted LPG Dealership and a consequential direction was issued to consider the claim of the first respondent/writ petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. T.V. Badrinathan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B. Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. K. Muralidharan, learned Standing Counsel for I.O.C., appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to as per the description in the writ petition. Thus, the appellant will be called as the third respondent, the first respondent will be called as the writ petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 will be called as the respondents 1 and 2.

4. The writ petitioner challenged the grant of LPG Dealership to the third respondent primarily on three grounds. Firstly, the third respondent has produced a bogus experie