The petitioner claims that she is the applicant who submitted an application for allotment of LPG Distributorship at Vadakara in Kozhikode District under the Open Category Non Individual. It is also stated that the petitioner applied on behalf of the partnership firm - M/s Agneyam Gas. But the 2nd respondent sent a letter to the petitioner expressing regret in informing that her candidature has not been found to be eligible for LPG Distributorship for two reasons: (1) Godown and show room land is in the name of individuals and (2) Fund is in the name of individuals.
2. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner sent a reply dated 26/12/2013 to the 2nd respondent stating that her application is for a partnership firm and it is not possible to register the land in the name of a partnership firm; but the land is registered in the name of the partners and they are ready to bringing the land into the partnership firm for the purpose of operating the distributorship. Regarding the second objection, it has been stated in the reply that funds shown in the application are in the name of individuals and it is this fund that will be the capital of the partnership firm also. It was also clarified that the firm has been specifically constituted for the purpose of obtaining and running the LPG Distributorship.
3. Thereafter, on receipt of Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent sent Ext.P5 reply raising a new ground for rejecting her application stating that since she had applied for a non-individual firm, the norms mentioned in the guideline is applicable. As per the eligibility criteria for non-individual applicants in Ext.P1 guideline, “Non individual applicant” means Government Bodies/ Agencies, Organised Bodies, Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, Charitable Trusts registered with Charity Commissioner of respective State Government, Companies formed under the Companies Act, 1956. It is also stated that since the partnership firm does not fall under any of the categories of non-individual, she is ineligible to apply for the distributorship.
4. On receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner again sent Ext.P6 reply stating that on an earlier occasion, the BPCL had raised the very same query; but later they accepted her application on the basis of explanation made by the petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent sent Ext.P7 communication to the petitioner informing that her candidature for location Vatakara, Kozhikode District, cannot be considered. Her further grievance is that in the year 2011, she had applied for LPG Distributorship at Nadapuram under the non-individual open category in response to the notification inviting application issued by M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. In that occasion, the BPCL accepted her application under the organised bodies. Thus, the stand taken by the respondents is discriminatory. This is the grievance projected in this writ petition. The petitioner prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash Exts.P3, P5 and P7 and also a writ of mandamus be issued to consider the petitioner also for the distributorship of LPG at Vatakara.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments in support of the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.
6. Per contra, on instructions, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent advanced arguments justifying the grounds under which the petitioner's application stands rejected. The learned Standing Counsel drew my attention to Clauses 7.2.VIII and 7.2.IX and submits that the above clauses specifically state that the non individual applicants should own land as well as possess the required funds in the name of the applicant itself. Further, the learned counsel drew my attention to Clause 8 of the latest guidelines which specifically excludes the partnership firms from the non-individual category. According to the learned counsel, the rejection is in terms with the specific Clauses of the latest guidelines.
7. Heard both sides. The petitioner has no case of mala fides or bias. So, the short question that emerges for consideration in this writ petition is whether there is any kind of arbitrariness in the decision making process or unreasonableness in the decision by which the petitioner's application has been rejected by the 2nd respondent.
8. Going by Ext.P1 guidelines, it could be seen that Clauses 7.2.VIII and 7.2.IX deal with requirements of money and property so as to make the applicant eligible. According to Clause 7.2.VIII, the Clause specifically stated that the non-individual applicants should have minimum total amount of `15 lakhs for Urban Markets and `10 lakhs for Urban-Rural & Rural Markets respectively as the closing balance on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement and amount must be in the name of the applicant itself. Similarly, Clause IX states that the non-individual applicants should own as on the last date for submission of application as specified in the advertisement a plot of land of minimum dimensions. Obviously, the above said Clauses specifically state that in the case of non-individual applicants, the applicants must possess money and own land in the name of the applicant itself.
9. Admittedly, in the instance case, the applicant is a firm by name M/s Agneyam Gas and the petitioner is only a partner of the firm. It is also admitted that the required fund stands in the account of the partners and the property is also in the name of partners. It is to be borne in mind that as per the Partnership Act, the partnership firm has a legal entity and the partners may come and go; but the firm remains as such unless and until it is dissolved in accordance with law. If that be so, I find that the petitioner's application cannot be accepted as one in order, in view of the above said Clauses which specifically state that the firm should possess the money and own the land, so as to satisfy the eligibility criteria.
10. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any kind of arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision making process or decision. If that be so, this Court cannot substitute its own decision. The decision taken by the 2nd respondent is strictly in accordance with the guidelines. There is no reason to interfere with Exts.P3, P5 and P7 under the writ jurisdiction.
Hence 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