← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/14586/2014disposed of

Tinu Thomas v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

2015-11-09Honourable Mr. Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/18TH KARTHIKA, 1937 WP(C).No. 14586 of 2014 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------ TINU THOMAS AGED 28 YEARS SON OF K.K. THOMAS, KOYIKKATTIL HOUSE, NADAVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD - 670 721.

BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.K.V.GEORGE SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENTS :

-----------------------

1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF AREA MANAGER KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS CIVIL STATION POST, WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 020. *ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED :

*2. NOUSHAJA S.M W/O.ABDUL SHAMEER, NIJAB MANZIL, MUNDAKUTTY PO. VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.

*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09.12.2014 IN IA 15395/14. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS ADDL. R2 BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA BY ADV. SRI.AMAL GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 14586 of 2014 (W) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF ADVERTISEMENT OF APPOINTMENT OF LPG DISTRIBUTORS ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS IN THE MALAYALA MANORAM, DAILY DATED 25.09.2013.

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP, DATED 25.10.2013 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KAO/MANANTHAVADI/140 DATED 21.11.2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER, WITH RECEIPT FOR RS.1,000/- ATTACHED THEREWITH.

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KAO/MANANTHAVADI/140 DATED 17.12.2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 09.01.2014 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS TO RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.KAO/MANANTHAVADI/140 DATED 25.04.2013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED LEAS DEED NO.3067 OF 2013 DATED 23.10.2013 OF MANANTHAVADY SUB REGISTRY EXHIBIT P8:

COPY F PRINT OUT OF MAP OF MANANTHAVADY PUBLISHED BY GOOGLE MAPS ON THEIR WEBSITE.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

--------------------------------------- EXT.R2(a):

COPY OF THE BROCHURE ON GUIDELINES OF SELECTION OF REGULAR LPG DISTRIBUTORS AUGUST 2013.

EXT.R1(a):

COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BROCHURE ON GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF REGULAR LPG DISTRIBUTORS, AUGUST, 2013. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE bp

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

---------------------------------------- W.P(C)No. 14586 of 2014 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Petitioner applied for regular L.P.G. Distributorship for the location of Mananthavady as notified in Ext.P1. His application has been rejected stating that the show room offered by the petitioner does not fall within the advertised location viz., Mananthavady.

2. Petitioner challenges the rejection of his application. Ext.P6 is the rejection order.

3. It is to be noted that the additional second respondent has been now selected, based on the draw for LPG Distributorship in Mananthavadi.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection is unsustainable. The advertisement only refers to the locationMananthavady. Therefore, anywhere in the Mananthavady Grama Panchayath, the petitioner can provide the showroom. Further, the

:-2-:

radius for the operation of the showroom, in which any distributor can operate, is 15 kms. Therefore, the petitioner's application ought not have been rejected. Petitioner contends that the location proposed by him for setting up the showroom is Valliyoorkavu, which is within the Mananthavady Grama Panchayath.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by the additional second respondent, it is submitted that the showroom was shown as Valliyoorkavu and not within the advertised location of Mananthavady. Valliyoorkavu is falling in the Payampilly village of Mananthavady Grama Panchayat and it is four kilometres away from Mananthavady Town.

6. The question for consideration is whether rejection is valid or not. The advertisement clearly indicates that the invitation for L.P.G.Distributorship was based on the location. When the location is clearly stated as Mananthavady, it does not refer to the identification based on the revenue district or revenue bifurcation such as Taluk,

:-3-:

Village etc. The petitioner cannot now prefix the condition that invitation for L.P.G.Distributorship was within the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. Nowhere in the advertisement, it is stated that invitation was for the award of L.P.G.Distributionship in the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. Petitioner cannot expand or widen the scope of invitation. The first respondent rejected the application as the proposed location is not within Mananthavadi. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, Judge MBS/

:-4-: