O R D E R

This Writ Petition has been filed declaring that the entire process of the lot conducted on 21.08.2018 conducted by the first respondent in respect of award of LPG Distributionship at Mullandram in Tiruvannamalai District under Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak (DKV) Type against Termination Category and the selection of the second respondent as illegal, null and void; consequently, direct the first respondent to conduct the lot for the same, only with the eligible applicants under Cause 15(c)(i) of Brochure on unified guidelines for Selection of LPG distributors.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the first respondent published an advertisement on 20.08.2017 calling for applications from the eligible applicants for award of LPG Distributorship at Mullandram in Tiruvannamalai Distrit under Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak (DKV) Type against termination category. As per clause 15(c) of the Brochure on Unified Guidelines for Seletion of LPG distributors, the applicants would reside in the concerned gram panchayat of the advertised location. The petitioner is the one of the applicants made application for the above said distributionship and he is coming within the category mentioned in the above said clause as he is a permanent resident of Mullandram. However, the first respondent has granted distributionship to the second respondent and the petitioner has also made objection. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has no other alternative remedy except to approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially, the first respondent has awarded the distributionship to one Gowri Radhakrishnan, Ammu Lakshmi Priya R – Ramakrishnan and Ramya Poongavanam, who are not the residents of concerned gram panchayat of the advertised location and they cannot be treated as the candidates within the first priority category of eligible applicants, residing in the concerned gram panchayat of the advertised location. Thereafter, the petitioner made objection and the first respondent has also recalled the distributionship from them. Again the first respondent has granted the distributionship to the second respondent without conducting proper verification. In view of the above, the first respondent, without following the guidelines, awarded the distributionship to the second respondent and therefore, the learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition and this Court may direct the first respondent to conduct proper enquiry by following mandatory provisions.

4. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that initially, the first respondent selected two ineligible candidates, however, on field verification, they were rejected. After suh rejection of candidature, fresh lot would be conducted from the remaining candidates. The selection process will continue till the eligible candidate is selected and the first respondent has strictly adhering by the guidelines. The entire process of selection is well within the guidelines stipulated and is in no way in contravention to clause

15(c) of the guidelines.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner along with 9 applicants have applied for distributionship before the first respondent. Initially, the first respondent conducted two lots and two ineligible persons were selected. On field verification, their distributionship were recalled. Further, the first respondent has granted the distributionship to the second respondent as per the procedure followed and there was no error on the part of the first respondent. In such view of the matter, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

06.03.2023 Index: Yes/ No Intern