The petitioner is an applicant who applied for the distributorship of LPG in the open category at Kalikavu in Malappuram District. The respondents 2 to 4, along with other Oil Companies, had invited applications from eligible candidates through advertisements in the newspapers. In response to the advertisement, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 application dated 18/10/2010 and the same was duly acknowledged by the 4th respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P3 letter calling upon him to be present for drawing lot for the selection of distributorship. Consequently, he was selected in the draw conducted on 30/12/2013 and the same was intimated to him by Ext.P4 and he was directed to comply the formalities. To his utter dismay and disappointment, the petitioner was informed by Ext.P7 that on verification, it was found that the information given by him against point No.11 is incorrect and as per the statement of account verified by the respondents, he did not have minimum amount as required as per the guidelines and thereby the candidature for LPG distributorship stand cancelled. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 is highly illegal, arbitrary and unconscionable. The same has been issued merely on the basis of technical error which is not at all deliberate or wilful as evident from Exts.P5 and P6. The petitioner had, in fact, maintained the requisite balance of `10 lakhs as on the date of application. It is also admitted that he has not maintained the required minimum balance in his bank account as on 25/10/2013. It was so happened on the reason that he applied as per the old format, instead of revised format. As per the old format, the requisite balance of `10 lakhs as on the date of application was sufficient. Though the petitioner had submitted Ext.P6 representation stating the true facts, the 3rd respondent has not taken Ext.P6 into consideration and issued Ext.P7 communication cancelling the selection. This is the grievance projected in the writ petition.
2. The 2nd and 3rd respondents filed a statement along with Annexures-R2(A), R2(B) and R2(C) stating that as per the revised format, the closing balance of `10 lakhs, as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement or corrigendum was required. On scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner had submitted the application in the old format. Consequently, the petitioner had been given an opportunity to submit a fresh application in the revised format and for that, Annexure-R2(B) communication was issued to the petitioner. In response to Annexure-R2(B), the petitioner had again submitted Annexure-R2(C) application dated 3/12/2013. But in the revised application also, in point No.11, the petitioner had categorically stated that he had `10,02,675.50 in the Savings Bank Account No.11200100147316 with the Federal Bank, Pandikkad Branch as closing balance as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. But, during the field verification, post draw of lots, it was found that the closing balance as on 25/10/2013 (i.e., the last date for submission of application as specified in the application) in the petitioner's Savings Bank Account was `57,668.50 only. This was contrary to the information provided by the petitioner as per point No.11 of Annexure-R2 (C) application wherein it was stated that `10,02,675.50 was available in the account as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. Thus, the petitioner did not meet the common eligibility criteria of minimum total amount of `10 lakhs and thereby, after verification, the selection was cancelled. It is also contended that the petitioner had consciously suppressed the fact of receipt of Annexure-R2(B) letter and submission of Annexure-R2(C) revised application in the writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments highlighting the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied in the old format which specifically states that minimum balance of `10 lakhs is required as on the date of application. It was only a mistake. It is also contended that all what transpired is nothing but an oversight, rather than a confusion which is created by Oil Companies themselves supplying different types of application forms in their website.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd and 3rd respondents advanced arguments contending that the petitioner had suppressed the material facts consciously with mala fides and obvious reasons that Annexures-R2(B) and R2(C) completely destroy the bogus case put forth by the petitioner in the writ petition.
5. Going by Annexures-R2(B) and R2(C), indisputably, it is seen that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to apply in the revised format and as per Annexure-R2(C) revised application, in point No.11, the petitioner had categorically stated that he had `10,02,675.50 in his Savings Bank Account with the Federal Bank. The petitioner has no case that he had such an amount on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. Going by Annexure-R2(C), at page 32 also, it is seen that the petitioner had claimed that such an amount is in his bank account as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement. But, on field verification, it was revealed that on the last date for submission of application as per the advertisement, the petitioner had `57,668.50 only. This fact is not disputed by the petitioner. In view of the said fact, prima facie, I find that the 2nd and 3rd respondents can be justified in cancelling the selection in accordance with the guideline.
6. The petitioner had been given an opportunity to submit an application in the revised format and the same was intimated by Annexure-R2(B) communication. Despite an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to correct the mistake, the petitioner has not corrected the mistake and repeated the same in the revised format Annexure- R2(C). I cannot find fault with the respondent company as they acted in accordance with the guideline only.
7. The scope and extent of jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is limited to the extent whether there is any mala fides or arbitrariness or bias in cancelling the selection.
8. Going by the contentions raised by the 2nd and 3rd respondents, it could be seen that the petitioner has not satisfied the requirements as per the guidelines. Therefore, the 2nd and 3rd respondents can be justified in cancelling the selection, after the field verification. No kind of arbitrariness or bias can be attributed to the decision making process and the decision taken by the 3rd respondent is just and proper.
In the above view, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold and I do so.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge