Dismissed

Ramesan.v.C v. the Union of India

Kerala HC21 Oct 2013WP(C)/23439/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner's writ petition seeking mandatory directions for LPG supply and license renewal was dismissed as unfit for judicial interference because a related civil suit was already pending before a Civil Court. The Court deprecated the petitioner's non-disclosure of the prior proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayers for writ of mandamus and further orders are dismissed.

Ramesan.v.C Vs the Union of India — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23439 of 2013 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

RAMESAN.V.C, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHATHAN, VENGASSERY HOUSE, PULIKUTTIMADOM ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, PROPRIETOR, "M/S.SANGAMESWARA INDANE SERVICES", IV/351-C KATTUR ROAD, NEAR NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680121.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO) NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES, ERNAKULAM SUB CIRCLE OFFICE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANISATION (PESO), KENDRIYA BHAVAN, BLOCK C-2, 3RD FLOOR, CSEZ P.O., KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682037.

¶12

3. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE KOCHI-682036.

¶13

ADDL. R4 TO R8 IMPLEADED

¶14

4. ABDUL MAJEED P.M., POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, ISLAND AVENUE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK-680 002.

¶15

5. MISRIYA MAJEED, W/O.ABDUL MAJEED P.M., POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, ISLAND AVENUE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK-680 002.

¶16

6. DR.MOHAMMED ASHIF, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, ISLAND AVENUE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK-680 002.

¶17

WP(C).No. 23439 of 2013 (D)

¶18

7. MOHAMMED AFSAL, S/O.ABDUL MAJEED, POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, ISLAND AVENUE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK-680 002.

¶19

8. SHAHDA MAJEED, D/O.ABDUL MAJEED, POKKAKILLATH HOUSE, ISLAND AVENUE, POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR TALUK-680 002.

¶20

*** ADDL. R4 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/10/2013 IN I.A. NO.13245/2013.**

¶21

R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR

¶22

SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI. ADDL. R4 TO R8 BY ADVS. SRI.M.K. CHANDRA MOHANDAS, SMT.K.K. RAZIA.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

¶25

WP(C).No. 23439 of 2013 (D)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶28

P1: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 27/1/04.

¶29

P2: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED DATED 25/10/06.

¶30

P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 25/10/06.

¶31

P4: COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED DATED 30/1/08.

¶32

P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30/1/08 BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶33

P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1/10/09 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶34

P7: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION DATED 6/8/2013.

¶35

P8: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD RECEIVED AND SIGNED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12/8/2013.

¶36

P9: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. DATED 14/8/2013.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 23439 of 2013

¶45

¶46

JUDGMENT

¶47

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶48

prayers :

¶49

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider the renewal application submitted by the petitioner as evidenced by Exts. P7 and P8, immediately, and till such time to further direct the third respondent to continue the regular supply of LPG cylinders for the petitioner in the interest of justice.

¶50

And

¶51

ii. To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.

¶52

It is brought to the notice of this Court that the writ

¶53

petitioner was a party to the earlier writ petition filed by the additional respondents by way of W.P.(C) No. 29671 of 2012, which was disposed of as per judgment dated 27.05.2013 in the following terms:

¶54

“4. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is

¶55

W.P.(C) No. 23439 of 2013

¶56

: 2 :

¶57

disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P7 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the fifth respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will also be a direction to the third respondent/competent authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P12 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the fifth respondent at the earliest, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶58

The petitioner has come up before this Court without disclosing anything with regard to the earlier writ petition as mentioned above and as to the judgment passed by this Court. On going through the pleadings and proceedings, it is seen that there is some dispute between the petitioner and the additional respondents with regard to the functioning of gas agency. It is stated that in connection with the said issue, the additional respondents have approached the concerned Civil Court, where the present writ petitioner also stands arrayed in the party array. The non-disclosure of the above aspects cannot, but be deprecated in the strongest possible words.

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 23439 of 2013

¶60

: 3 :

¶61

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it as fit case to call for interference, more so when the Civil Suits are stated as pending before the concerned Civil Court. It is for the parties to pursue the remedy before the concerned Civil Court, including by way of appropriate interim reliefs, if justified on merits. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. This Court reluctantly refrains from ordering cost.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶64

kmd

Ramesan.v.C v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesan.v.C v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Dasan Vs Inspector General (Registration)

Prashob Sugathan Vs the Passport Officer

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala

G.K.Granites Ltd. Vs Bharath Petroleum Company

S.Mohankumar Vs Taluk Supply Officer, Kunnathoor

Mary Sebastian Vs State of Kerala