The petitioner is an applicant who has applied for appointing a Distributor for Rajeev Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak ('RGGLV') at Naduvil in Kannur District. According to the petitioner, he had fulfilled all the eligibility criteria in accordance with Ext.P2. The 2nd respondent, on receipt of the application and after verification of the same, as per letter dated 7/5/2012, informed the petitioner that there are defects in the application submitted by the petitioner and given an opportunity to submit a representation in order to cure the defects. Thereafter, the petitioner had cured all the defects and the 2nd respondent processed and considered the application of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is qualified for draw of selection of 'RGGLV'. The draw of lots for selecting candidate for awarding the 'RGGLV' was conducted at 11.30 a.m. on 20/7/2013 and in the draw of lots, the petitioner was selected for award of 'RGGLV' at Naduvil. While so, as per letter dated 28/4/2014, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner has not been found eligible for the reason that minimum fund of ` 2 lakhs, as per policy, was not available, as per the application of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, as per Ext.P6, it was clearly stated by the 2nd respondent that the petitioner was qualified for draw of lots for selection of 'RGGLV'. The name of a candidate who applied for selection of 'RGGLV' would be included in the lots for draw only if he is found qualified and eligible. So, according to the petitioner, there is no point in Ext.P7 saying that minimum fund of `2 lakhs, as policy, was not available, as per the application of the petitioner. Hence the petitioner approached this Court being deeply aggrieved by the rejection of his application for award of 'RGGLV' by the 2nd respondent, after finding him eligible for award of the agency and conducting draw of lot. 2. Going by the Writ Petition itself, it is seen that aggrieved by the rejection of the appointment, pursuant to the lot, the petitioner, on the above reason, had filed Ext.P12 representation before 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has not considered that representation so far. Going by the representation, it is seen that the petitioner has stated full details of his claim and also copies of the bank statements are also attached with Ext.P12 representation. At this juncture, I am of the opinion that it is not proper to interfere with the grievance at this stage. It is for the 2nd respondent to apply his mind, at first, over the grievance of the petitioner.
3. In the above view, the 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of Ext.P12 representation filed by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent shall not finalise the Distributor for concerned area till the disposal of Ext.P12 representation.
This Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge