Disposed

V.K.Sukumaran v. Union of India

Kerala HC10 Nov 2014WP(C)/18423/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an LPG distributor, challenged a major penalty imposed by the State防治 Board for alleged wrong updation of cylinder delivery. Court held appeal should be entertained by depositing 25% of penalty, treating irregularity possibly as minor.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to prefer appeal within two weeks by depositing 25% of the penalty amount; all other contentions left open.

V.K.Sukumaran Vs Union of India — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/19TH KARTHIKA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 18423 OF 2014 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.K.SUKUMARAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, PROPRIETOR, SREELEKSHMI GAS AGENCIES, BHARATGAS DISTRIBUTERS, CHEMPAZANTHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY, SMT.C.G.PREETHA, SRI.K.V.GEORGE, SRI.P.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SRI.P.S.GIREESH.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶11

2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG), TRIVANDRUM TERRITORY- LPG, P.B. NO. 6, KAZHAKUTTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.

¶12

3. THE REGIONAL LPG MANAGER, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., SOUTHERN REGIONAL OFFICE, LPG BUSINESS UNIT, 1 RANGANATHAN GARDENS, OFF 11TH MAIN ROAD, ANNANAGAR, CHENNAI-400 060.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSIST. S.G. OF INDIA. R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).NO. 18423 OF 2014 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

P1:TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. TVM LPG SREELEKSHMI DTD. 12/05/2014 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

P2:TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DTD. 12/05/2014 OF MR.LAWRENCE NETTO.T, TO MR.S. SELVARAJ, DY. MANAGER-LPG SALES OF 2ND RESPONDENT, ENCLOSED WITH EXT P1 LETTER.

¶21

P3:TRUE COPY OF BLUE BOOK NO. 2176510 IN RESPECT OF MR.LAWRENCE NETTO. T, ENCLOSED WITH EXT P1 LETTER.

¶22

P4:TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. TVM LPG SREELEKSHMI DTD. 21/05/2014 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5:TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 29/05/2014 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO DELIVERY BOY, MR.ANILKUMAR.

¶24

P6:TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DTD. 07/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY DELIVERY BOY, MR.ANILKUMAR TO PETITIONER.

¶25

P7:TRUE COPY OF EXPLANATION DTD. 14/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P8:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TVM LPG SREELEKSHMI DTD. 23/06/2014 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.

¶27

P9:TRUE COPY OF MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES 2014 PUBLISHED BY 2ND RESPONDENT WITH INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., PUBLISHED ON 2ND RESPONDENTS WEBSITE.

¶28

P10:TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED MARKETING DISCIPLINE GUIDELINES 2014 FOR LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP PUBLISHED BY 2ND RESPONDENT WITH INDIAN OIL CORPORATION AND HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ON 01/09/2014.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

=========================

¶35

W.P(C).No.18423 of 2014C

¶36

============================ Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2014

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner is a retail distributor of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). Invoking Marketing Discipline Guidelines, 2014 produced as Ext.P9, a major penalty has been imposed on the petitioner by directing the petitioner to remit a sum of `84,131.29/- as per Ext.P8. The complaint in Ext.P8 is regarding wrong updation of cylinder delivery for customer Mr.Lawrence Netto. According to the petitioner, this matter could not fall under major irregularity and if at all there is any irregularity which can only be treated as minor irregularity as contemplated under Sec.2.3.2 in Ext.P9. Petitioner also challenges imposition of condition of payment of entire penalty for availing appellate remedy. Petitioner therefore seeks to strike down sub-clause (1) of clause 3.11 in Ext.P9 to the extent it imposes deposit of fine amount to entertain an appeal.

¶39

Learned Standing Counsel with reference to Ext.P9 submits that this issue falls under classification of major penalty and petitioner has an appellate remedy by depositing the entire penalty amount. It is further submitted that the condition in Ext.P9 as prerequisite deposit for entertaining appeal is a

¶40

W.P(C).No.18423 of 2014C

¶41

¶42

reasonable condition.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner points out Ext.P10 and submits that the company itself has found that imposition of condition of prerequisite payment for entertaining appeal is unreasonable and company itself has modified the condition in Ext.P10 by reducing it to 25% of deposit as a prerequisite condition for appeal.

¶44

The question in this writ petition is revolved upon the issue of classifying the alleged irregularity as major or minor. Essentially this is a question of fact. This court invoking power under Art.226 of the Constitution is not expected to re-appreciate the facts or evidence. It may require evaluation of necessary evidence. Therefore, appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach appellate forum as contemplated under Ext.P9 guidelines. No doubt, as on the date of order, the petitioner is bound by the guidelines in Ext.P9 which mandates that the petitioner has to deposit the entire penalty imposed on him for filing an appeal. Though the period of filing appeal is over. Considering the fact that this matter is pending before this Court since 17.07.2014 and on account of pendency of this writ

¶45

W.P(C).No.18423 of 2014C

¶46

¶47

petition, time happened to be expired. I am of the view, any delay in the matter has to be condoned. However, question is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the entire penalty amount to entertain an appeal. In normal circumstance, petitioner is bound to comply with the stipulation in Ext.P9. However, considering the fact that the very contention of the petitioner is that this issue falls under minor irregularity which only mandates warning in cases of irregularity at first instance, I am of the view without treating this case as not a precedent, appeal shall be entertained on deposit of 25% of the amount. Therefore, the petitioner shall prefer an appeal as contemplated in Ext.P9 within two weeks after depositing 25% of the amount as contemplated in Ext.P10. All the contentions in the writ petition are left open.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶50

Sbna/11/11/14

V.K.Sukumaran v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Sukumaran v. 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

Sasikumar Nambiar Vs the Nodal Officer

Uthuppu Vs the District Collector

Dr.Sabila a. Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Paulose Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Cherian Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Shareef Vs the Passport Officer