whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.2. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 16.8.2010, Annexure P.3 alleging that selection of respondent No.5 for allotment of Retail Outlet Dealership deserves to be cancelled on account of suppression of material facts. Having received no response, the petitioner again submitted a representation dated 10.12.2010, Annexure P.5. The petitioner also sought information under RTI Act vide application Annexure P.6. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide letters dated 3.3.2011 and 15.3.2011 directed respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for investigating the matter in the light of the complaint submitted by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the selected candidate submitted false affidavit. The petitioner was permitted by respondent No.1 vide letter dated 24.3.2011, Annexure P.8 to inspect the record. On inspection of record, it was noticed by the petitioner that respondent No.6 who had submitted the affidavit in favour of respondent No.5 had further given a fresh affidavit dated 11.4.2011 mentioning therein that his previous affidavit was not correct. On 27.5.2011, the petitioner sent a legal notice Annexure P.13 to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No.14944 of 2011 in this Court. Vide order dated 17.8.2011, Annexure P.15, the petition was disposed of with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Vide order dated 11.11.2011, Annexure P.16, respondent No.4 rejected the plea taken by the petitioner. Hence this petition.
