M/S. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Vineethakumari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/20TH SRAVANA, 1937 RP.No. 469 of 2013 () IN WP(C).28174/2011 ------------------------------------------- IN WP(C) 28174/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA ----------------------------------- REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/REVIEW PETITIONERS/IST AND 2ND RESPONDNT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
PANAMPILLI AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NARAR P.O., KOCHI-682 036 REP. BY GENERAL MANAGER.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL SALES MANAGER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISIONAL OFFICE VALLAKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. VINEETHAKUMARI R., W/O LATE SIVAKUMAR, PARVATHY BHAVAN, MOOZHI NADA CHERIAKONNI PO, NEDUMANGD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.
2. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORTION LTD REP. BY SENIOR MANAGER, KOCHI RETAIL OFFICE P.B.NO.1601, TATAPURAM, ERNAKULAM-682 018.
BY SRI.R.ANILKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VS
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------------- Review Petition.No.469 of 2013 in W.P.(C).No.28174 of 2011 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
There is a review petition filed by the first and the second respondents in the writ petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioners that this Court recorded the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the proposal to appoint a petroleum dealer at Kuttichal, Thiruvananthapuram has already been dropped. It is submitted that the said submission was made by a mistake. It is also pointed out that the letter of intent was issued at that point of time.
By recording the submissions, the W.P.(C). No.28174/2011 is closed.
2. Since the review petition is based on a mistaken submission made before this Court, it is well founded. Hence the review petition is allowed and the writ petition is revived and reposted.
Registry will post the same as per roster.
Sd/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE vs