JUDGMENT 1. W.P.1737/2009 filed by the petitioner to quash Annexures - F & H, upon consideration was allowed on 23.01.2009 and the impugned communications therein were quashed. However, liberty was reserved to respondents 1 & 2, to issue notice to the petitioner, hear and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. The said order has attained finality. Respondents 1 & 2 having taken a decision contrary to the interest of the petitioner, seeking quashing of a letter dated 10.03.2009 as at Annexure-L and another letter dated 12.03.2009 as at Annexure-M, W.P.No.7503/2009 was filed and the same was disposed of on 16.11.2009 vide Order at Annexure-P. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed W.A.No.156/2010. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and Annexures - A, B & J to W.P.No.1737/2009 were quashed and the official respondents were directed to strictly adhere to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1737/2009 vide Annexure-J. The process was directed to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Petitioner was notified on 28.05.2010 vide Annexure-R to appear in person before the 2nd respondent for a personal hearing and to submit her grievance on 10.06.2010. The petitioner submitted a representation as per Annexure-S. Respondents 1 and 2 having held that the grievance of the petitioner is not established and the matter having been closed as per the communication dated 15.07.2010 vide Annexure-A, this writ petition has been filed to quash the said decision and also the consequential communications dated 26.07.2010 vide Annexures - B & C. 2. Sri Subramanya R., learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the Order as at Annexure-J and the Judgment as at Annexure-Q having become final, respondents 1 and 2 have acted arbitrarily and illegally in the matter of selection of respondent No.4 as the LPG distributor for Channarayapatna and in issuing the communications as at Annexures - A & B. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not issued with any show cause notice indicating the reasons for deletion of her name from the merit list and in the circumstances, interference is warranted. 3. 3. Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, learned advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 3, by making a reference to the statement of objections filed on 21.03.2011, contended that there being compliance with the order passed vide Annexure-J, which was reiterated in the Judgment as at Annexure-Q, the petitioner having not suffered any injustice, since her grievance was investigated and found to be devoid of merit, writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Sri Dayanand S. Patil, learned advocate appearing for the 4th respondent, the selected candidate, by referring to the statement of objections filed on 14.09.2011 submitted that in pursuance of the Order as at Annexure-B, the 4th respondent is carrying on the business of distribution of LPG and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. Perused the writ petition record. 6. W.P.No.1737/2009 was allowed on 23.01.2009 vide Order at Annexure-J, mainly on the ground that, prior to the cancellation, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of hearing and that there is violation of principles of natural justice. However, the respondents were granted the liberty to issue notice and then pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. 7. In the second round of litigation, W.A.No.156/2010 decided on 12.04.2010, taking note of the developments which have taken in the matter including the issuance of dealership/distribution to the 4th respondent, while allowing the writ appeal and the writ petition, it was found as follows: "5. On perusal of the record, we note that the selection of the present appellant on 21.2.2008 still remains as it was not quashed or modified or altered by order of any of the Courts. On the other hand, on her approaching the Court the direction was given to hear her and then pass an order. Though she was asked to appear before one of the Senior Managers Vijayasarathi on 11.2.2009, in fact she appeared and was heard by Mr.VIjayasarathi, but Mr. Radhakrishna who had not heard her proceeded to pass order at Annexure-A and J also has come into existence virtually canceling the earlier selection of the appellant dated 21.2.2008 by issuing dealership of distribution to one Smt. Shobha Narayanan the present 4th respondent. There was no occasion for this appellant Rajeshwari to approach the Redressal Committee as she was the successful candidate and the question of her approaching the grievance committee does not arise. 6. There was no occasion for this appellant Rajeshwari to approach the Redressal Committee as she was the successful candidate and the question of her approaching the grievance committee does not arise. 6. The respondents 1 to 3 have not issued show-cause notice to Smt. Rajeshwarai the present appellant asking or calling upon her to say why her dealership should not be cancelled, and then she must be heard giving her an opportunity to put forth her say and then the person who hears the matter should pass an order applying his mind. None of the procedures have been followed. Therefore, there is absolutely no adherence to the principles of natural justice by the respondents, leave alone compliance of the directions of the learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition." Respondents 1 to 3 were directed to strictly adhere to the directions in W.P.No.1737/2009, follow the principles of natural justice, grant opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 8. It is not the case of respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner was notified of the reason which led to the cancellation of her name from the panel. In effect, no show cause notice as such has been issued by respondents 1 to 3, even after the Judgment dated 12.04.2010 was passed in W.A.No.156/2010 vide Annexure-Q. The notice at Annexure-R cannot be construed as one issued in compliance of the said Judgment and the Order as at Annexure-J. Though the petitioner has highlighted her grievance in Annexure-S, she being unaware of the reasons which made the respondents 1 to 3 to delete her name from the panel, is justified in filing this writ petition and seeking quashing of the communications as at Annexures -A & B. The impugned action of respondents 1 to 3 has to be found fault with for the very reasons indicated in the order as at Annexure-G and the Judgment at Annexure-Q. In the result, writ petition is allowed and impugned communication as at Annexure-A is quashed. In so far as the challenge to communications as at Annexures-B & C is concerned, the same shall be subject to the outcome of the consideration of petitioner's case in terms of the directions issued in the Order at Annexure-J and the Judgment at Annexure-Q. The respondents 1 to 3 or the concerned competent authority shall issue show cause notice to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date a copy of this order becomes available. It is open to the petitioner to submit a reply within a period of three weeks from the date the show cause notice is received. Thereafter, petitioner be granted an opportunity of personal hearing and the matter decided within an outer time limit of two weeks from the date the personal hearing takes place. Depending upon the outcome of the consideration and the decision of the competent authority, the dealership of respondent No.4 shall stand regulated. Needless to observe that the petitioner being more meritorious than the 4th respondent in terms of the earlier order, if the petitioner's grievance gets sustained, 4th respondent has to give way for allotment of dealership and not otherwise. Further it is made clear that the 4th respondent shall continue to act as the distributor till the decision is taken by respondents 1 to 3.