Quashed

Deepthi.P v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltdr

Kerala HC23 Nov 2009WP(C)/20398/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, ranked first for LPG distributorship, faced disqualification over tax return discrepancies. Prior court orders directed the Senior Regional Manager to hear her before deciding. Impugned order was passed by a subordinate officer. Petitioner seeks quashing without merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; files transmitted to Senior Regional Manager; directed to issue notice, hear petitioner (non-lawyer), pass reasoned order, and maintain status quo until order communication.

Deepthi.P Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 20398 of 2009(T) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): ---------------

¶7

DEEPTHI P., W/O.MR.SREENATH P.K., 'SREEPADMAM', AYANCHERI P.O., VADAKARA-673544.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶10

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER.

¶11

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., L.P.G.REGIONAL OFFICE, BALA VILLAGE, (VIA) KATIPALLA, MANGALORE-575 030.

¶12

THE ZONAL MANAGER - L.P.G., HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., NATARAJAN BUILDING, IV FLOOR, P.B.NO.3045, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, CHENNAI-600 008.

¶13

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-LPG, SOUTH ZONE, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN BUILDING, 1, GANDHI-IRWIN ROAD, P.B.NO.3045, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008.

¶14

ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J

¶17

W.P.(C).20398/2009

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2009

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Heard Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶21

By a notification dated 27.12.2007, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited invited applications for appointment as LPG distributor at Kutyadi. The last date for submission of applications was 24.1.2008. The petitioner applied within time. The eligible candidates were interviewed and Ext.P2 list of empannelled candidates was published on 10.4.2008 in which the petitioner was ranked first. Thereafter field verification was conducted. According to the respondents, on verification it was revealed that the factual details furnished by the petitioner in the application in so far as they relate to filing of income tax returns were not correct. There upon, the petitioner's candidature was cancelled. The decision rejecting the petitioner's candidature was however not communicated to her. She therefore filed W.P.(C).No.7424 of 2009 in this Court complaining that she is rank No.1 in the

¶22

W.P.(C).20398/09

¶23

¶24

empanelled list published on 10.4.2008, till date, the letter of intent has not been issued to her.

¶25

When the said writ petition came up for admission on 24.1.2008, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that after verification the petitioner was disqualified. On noticing that before the petitioner was disqualified, she was not given a chance to explain the discrepancies in the application, this Court held in Ext.P6 judgment that the procedure adopted by the respondents is not fair. This Court accordingly directed the second respondent herein who was the second respondent in W.P.(C). 7424 of 2009 also, to issue notice to the petitioner setting out the details on which she is sought to be disqualified, hear her after giving time to file objections and pass an order and communicate the same to her . This Court also directed that till then, the award of dealership shall not be finalized.

¶26

Within one week after Ext.P6 judgment was delivered, the second respondent sent Ext.P7 letter dated 2.4.2009 informing the petitioner that on field verification it was revealed that she and her husband had not filed income tax returns before 24.1.2008, that the returns were filed only thereafter, that it amounts to violation of clause 19 of the

¶27

W.P.(C).20398/09

¶28

¶29

guidelines and that she is ineligible for five marks awarded under clause 14.1. The second respondent accordingly informed the petitioner that she is ineligible for appointment as LPG distributor.

¶30

Since Ext.P7 order was passed without hearing the petitioner, she filed W.P.(C).12290 of 2009 in this Court. The said writ petition came up for admission on 8.4.2009. On that day, after hearing the learned standing counsel for the respondents this Court disposed of the writ petition by Ext.P8 judgment with a direction that Ext.P7 shall be treated as a notice and that the second respondent herein (who was the second respondent in the said writ petition also) shall hear the petitioner and pass a reasoned order dealing with all her contentions. This Court also directed that the award of dealership shall not be finalized till the order is passed and communicated to the petitioner.

¶31

As directed by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 objections dated 11.4.2009 addressed to the second respondent. It is not in dispute that though in Exts.P6 and P8 judgments, the second respondent is described as Regional Manager at Mangalore, his correct designation is Senior Regional Manager and not Regional

¶32

W.P.(C).20398/09

¶33

¶34

Manager. Though this Court had in Exts.P6 and P8 judgments directed the Senior Regional Manager to decide the issue, the Zonal Manager, the third respondent herein who is a superior officer of the second respondent, heard the petitioner. Thereafter the fourth respondent, an Officer subordinate to the third respondent passed Ext.P10 order dated 7.9.2009 holding that the petitioner's application is liable to be rejected. Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 on various grounds. However, when this writ petition heard today, Sri.K.R.B.Kaimal the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that since Ext.P10 is an order passed in violation of Exts.P6 and P8 judgments, and also too in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the petitioner's other contentions and that this writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the Senior Regional Manager at Mangalore, who issued Ext.P7 notice to hear the petitioner and pass an order after considering the objections raised by her in Ext.P9. Relying on a recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Sudheer T. v. M.V.Susheela and others (ILR 2009 (4)

¶36

W.P.(C).20398/09

¶37

¶38

Kerala 121) , the learned counsel submitted that Ext.P10 is liable to quashed on the ground that the order is not passed by the third respondent who heard the petitioner, but by the fourth respondent.

¶39

Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Exts.P6 and P8 judgments, the Senior Regional Manager should have heard the petitioner and passed the order. He however justified the action of the respondents by stating that the order impugned is passed by a superior officer and therefore the petitioner can have no reason to be aggrieved on that Court. The leaned counsel submitted that the Senior Regional Manager will himself hear the petitioner, take a decision and pass a reasoned order as directed in Exts.P6 and P8 judgments. In the light of the fair stand adopted by Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, I do not propose to go into the merits of the various contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I accordingly quash Ext.P10 and dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents 3 and 4 to transmit the files to the Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum

¶40

W.P.(C).20398/09

¶41

¶42

Corporation Limited, Mangalore, within one week from today. The Senior Regional Manger shall issue notice to the petitioner, hear the petitioner in person or through her authorized representative (other than a lawyer) and pass an order giving reasons in support of his conclusions and findings. The said Officer shall, as soon as orders are passed, communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner by post. Till orders are passed as directed above and for a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order by the petitioner, the status quo as on today shall be maintained. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. The entire process shall be completed within one month from

¶43

today.

¶44

P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge

¶45

mrcs

Deepthi.P v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltdr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepthi.P v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltdr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anju G.Prasad Vs the Kerala University

Muhammed Febil Vs State of Kerala

Paulose George Construction Co.(P) Ltd. Vs the Kerala Minerals & Metals Limited

R.Wilson Vs Smt.Nivedita P.Haran

Chinnapper S. Vs Shajahan

Mathew Sebastian Vs Union of India and Others