Disposed

Sahira Basheer v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Other

Kerala HC9 Jan 2009WP(C)/729/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the petitioner's application for an LPG distributorship where she was rejected in favor of a third respondent. The court directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's complaint regarding interview marks and pass orders expeditiously before the final award, ensuring an opportunity of hearing for all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P1 and pass orders before the award of the dealership, after hearing all parties.

Sahira Basheer Vs the Indian Oil Corporation… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 729 of 2009(J)

PETITIONER(S):

SAHIRA BASHEER, W/O.K.M.ABDUL BASHEER, "BAITHUL AYSHA' OPP.TAGORE COLLEGE, VIDYA NAGAR, KASARGOD-671123.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.D.KRISHNA PRASAD

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE,PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O. KOCHI-682036,REPRESENTED ITS GENERAL MANAGER,

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER,THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O. KOCHI-682036.

¶15

SINDHU JOSEPH, W/O.ANTO MATHEW, MANIKOMBEL VEEDU, AYYANKUNNU,P.O.KACHERIKADAVU670706,THALASSSERRY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

ADV. SRI. E.K. NANDAKUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶19

W. P (C) No. 729 of 2009

¶20

Dated this, the 9^th January, 2009.

¶21

Petitioner is an applicant for award of LPG distributorship at Kasaragod by respondents 1 and 2. In preference to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent has been selected. According to the petitioner, going by the guidelines applicable, the petitioner was entitled to be preferred to the 3^rd respondent. In respect of the interview marks, if anybody has any grievance, the aggrieved person can file a complaint before the 2^nd respondent as per the procedure prescribed. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext. P1 complaint before the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner now seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P1 expeditiously.

¶22

I have heard the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P1, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before the award of the dealership, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶25

Tds/

¶26

[True copy]

¶27

P.S to Judge.

Sahira Basheer v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahira Basheer v. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.Prameela Vs Shri.M.Subair

Rajan Thambi Vs Karunakaran Nair & Anr.

M/S.Kaikkara Construction Company Vs P.J.Thomas

C.K.Rugmini Vs Shri.M.Subair

Shobhana Vs the Managing Director

T.K.Jayan Vs Chalakkudy Municipality