Kerala High Court
Tinu Thomas vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 9 November, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938
WA.No. 171 of 2016 IN WP(C).14586/2014
-------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14586/2014 DATED 9.11.2015
.....................
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC :
--------------------------------------
TINU THOMAS, AGED 29,
S/O. K.K.THOMAS, KOYIKKATTIL HOUSE,
NADAVAYAL P.O., WAYANAD - 670 721.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT IN WPC :
--------------------------------------------
1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
RERPERSENTED BY ITS CHIEF AREA MANAGER,
KOZHIKODE AREA OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS,
CIVIL STATION P.O., WAYANAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.
2. NOUSHAJA S.M
W/O. ABDUL SHAMEER, NIJAB MANZIL,
MUNDAKUTTY P.O., VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 670 645.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA
SRI.AMAL GEORGE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J. & Sathish Ninan, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A. No. 171 of 2016
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, C.J.
The judgment dated 09.11.2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 14586 of 2014 is called in question in this appeal by the writ petitioner.
2. The 1st respondent Corporation invited applications by publishing notification as per Ext.P1 for allotting LPG distributorship in respect of various places including the location of Mananthavady. The appellant also applied for grant of LPG distributorship which came to be rejected by the 1st respondent on the ground that the place shown by the appellant as the location of his show room does not fall within the location specified in Ext.P1, i.e. Mananthavady. Questioning Ext.P6 order of rejection, the writ petition came to be filed and the same is dismissed by the impugned order.
3. It is not in dispute that the locality of the show room shown by the appellant in his application is 'Valliyoorkavu' and not Mananthavady. However such village, Valliyoorkavu WA 171/16 -:2:- comes within the jurisdiction of Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. The appellant contends that since Valliyoorkavu comes within the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat, i.e. Mananthavady location, his application for grant of distributorship ought to have been considered and granted. Such a contention raised before the learned single Judge is dismissed by assigning valid reasons.
4. The specification of location in Ext.P1 Notification is that the proposed allottee shall have the show room at Mananthavady and not in any area coming under the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. Since the location is specifically shown as Mananthavady, it is not open for the appellant to contend that the distributor can establish his show room in any one of the areas coming under the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. It is not in dispute that Valliyoorkavu is about 4 KMs away from the Mananthavady town. As the distributorship is to cater to the residents of the Mananthavady and the surrounding area, it is incumbent on the part of the distributors to locate the show room in a WA 171/16 -:3:- place as stated in Ext.P1 notification. It is also not in dispute that the notification clearly indicates that the distributorship of the LPG is based on the location. When the location is clearly stated as Mananthavady, and the notification does not refer to any identification based on the revenue district or the revenue bifurcation such as Taluk, Panchayat etc., the appellant cannot be allowed to interpret any clause in the notification for his convenience. On the other hand, the appellant will have to strictly adhere to the conditions mentioned in Ext.P1 notification inviting applications for distributorship.
5. There cannot be any dispute that an LPG distributor is appointed by the respondent for the purpose of effectively serving LPG customers of the respondent Company. Hence the respondent company is to best judge as to how such service can be made more effective, including by selecting the proper locations for the proposed showroom. It is purely a matter of policy and not liable to be interfered with by the Court, especially when there is no allegation of any malafide on the part of the respondents.
WA 171/16 -:4:-
Since specified location is a must to award LPG distributorship and as the location is specifically stated as Mananthavady, it is not open for the appellant to show his place of show room as Valliyoorkavu on the ground that it comes within the jurisdiction of Mananthavady Grama Panchayat. The authorities are justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. The order passed by the authority as well as the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14586 of 2014 is just and proper and no interference is called for. Hence, the writ appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Chief Justice.
Sd/-
Sathish Ninan, Judge.
ttb/20/10