Petitioners challenging restriction on tank truck choice for fuel supply. Court held objection regarding installation location is unsustainable and dealers entitled to benefits of prior judgments.
Petitioners declared entitled to benefit of Exts.P1 and P3 judgments; writ petition disposed as such.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2007 / 29TH PAUSHA 1928
WP(C).No. 1429 of 2007(T)
PETITIONER:
BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY SRI A.M.SHAFIQUE, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R.RAMAN,J.
W.P.(C).NO.1429 OF 2007
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2007
JUDGMENT
First respondent is an Association of
Petroleum Dealers in Kozhikode District, second petitioner is a Service Station of H.P.C. Dealers, Kunnamangalam and the third petitioner is a Petroleum Agencies, IOC Dealers, Kunnamangalam, Calicut. Petitioners
seek for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit their dealers to take delivery of petroleum products in tank trucks of their choice having transportation contract with the respondents in accordance with the directions contained in Exts.P1 and P3 judgments of this Court and further seek for a direction that the dealers of the respondents in Kozhikode are entitled to the benefit of
-2-
W.P.(C).NO.1429/2007
Exts.P1 to P3 judgments. Ext.P6 is a letter issued by the Ist respondent with reference to the letter dated 17/10/2006 addressed to the Advocates to the petitioners. According to Ext.P6 letter, the judgments cited are directed supplies from lst respondent's installation at Irumpanam, Cochin and does not cover their installation at Elathur, Calicut. This being the only objection raised, it has to be found that the objection is not sustainable. Merely because of the change in the place of installation there cannot be any difference in the law to be applied. In the circumstances, it is declared that the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit contained in Exts1 and P3 judgments.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
P.R.RAMAN,
Judge.
kcv.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petroleum dealers entitled to benefits of Exts.P1 and P3 judgments despite difference in installation location.
Kozhikode District Petroleum Dealers Association
Minerva Service Station
Shankar Petroleum Agencies
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
P.R. Raman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
