Disposed

Sindhu.T.S. v. M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Kerala HC11 Jun 2014WP(C)/20172/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the outcome of a dealership application. It directed the competent authority to merge a pending request with the main application and dispose of it after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner was permitted to produce copies of the judgment to facilitate early action. No substantive relief on the dealership claim was granted.

What did the court decide?

Director to dispose of Ext.P9 request after hearing petitioner within three months.

Sindhu.T.S. Vs M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 20172 of 2013 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SINDHU.T.S., THIRUVATHIRA, MUTTAPPALAM, VARKALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR SRI.G.BIJU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. M/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., G-9, ALIYAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051.

¶11

2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KOCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36.

¶12

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR

¶13

SRI.C.S.DIAS

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

WP(C).No. 20172 of 2013 (V)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DT. 9-12-2004.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DT. 25-5-2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DT. 23-11-2005 ISSUED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15-10-2012 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5(A) : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DT. 24-12-2012 GIVEN BY SINDHU V.CHANDRAN.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5(B) : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DT. 17-12-2012 GIVEN BY THAHIR.

¶26

EXHIBIT P5(C) : TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DT. 23-12-2012 GIVEN BY SADATH SAINULABDEEN AND SHAMMA SHAFI.

¶27

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 29-12-2012 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶28

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 15-01-2013 FROM 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 11-4-2013 SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 25-4-2013 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

EXHIBIT R1(1) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 12/04/2012

¶33

EXHIBIT R1(2) TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULAR NO.205-10/2012 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 04/10/2012

¶34

EXHIBIT R1(3) TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULAR NO.205(A)-06/2012 ISSUED BY THE HEAD OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 10/06/2013

¶35

2/-

¶36

-2-

¶37

WP(C).NO.20172/2013

¶38

EXHIBIT R1(4) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 01/08/2013

¶39

EXHIBIT R1(5) TRUE COPY OF THE EXCEL SHEET GIVING THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF LOI IN FAVOUR OF THE RESPECTIVE LOI HOLDERS UNDER EACH DIVISION OF THE RESPONDENT

¶40

EXHIBIT R1(6) TRUE COPY OF THE EXCEL SHEET GIVING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE LOI HOLDERS WITH THE DATE OF DEALERSHIP ADVERTISEMENT, THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF LOI LOCATION, DISTRICT, CATEGORY, CLASS OF MARKET, PLAN ETC, UNDER THE THREE DIVISIONAL OFFICES OF THE CORPORATION IN KERALA.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶45

W.P.(C) No.20172 of 2013

¶46

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2014

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

The petitioner, who is an applicant for dealership of retail outlet of respondent Corporation, submitted an application pursuant to Ext.P1 notification under the scheduled caste category.

¶49

The petitioner alleges that she was selected in the interview conducted by the selection committee and Ext.P2 Letter of Intent was issued. The petitioner alleges that pursuant to Ext.P2, the second respondent selected land at Omallur and required the petitioner to obtain necessary license and permits. However, it did not materialise and thereafter by Ext.P5, the second respondent informed the petitioner to arrange land anywhere in India and to inform the company, so that they can proceed with the matter.

¶50

WPC No.20172/2013 2

¶51

The petitioner alleges that she found out land at two places and obtained consent from the land owners expressing their willingness to sell the land to Indian Oil Corporation for the specific purpose.

¶52

The petitioner further alleges that though she took further action in the matter, on enquiry with the second respondent, she was told that she has to purchase the land and to arrange the infrastructure. According to her, the present stand

¶53

of the respondents is opposed to the very object of the corpus fund scheme envisaged in Ext.P1 notification and promise given as per Ext.P2. She would say that Ext.P9 request given by her in this regard is not yet considered.

¶54

Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents refuting the allegations in the writ petition.

¶55

When the matter came up for hearing, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P9 request which is now pending

¶56

WPC No.20172/2013 3

¶57

before the second respondent is yet to be disposed of . Hence, this Court feels that it is only just and proper to direct the competent authority to dispose of Ext.P9 application, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶58

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority under the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 request made by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

To facilitate an early action, it shall be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition and a copy of this judgment before the authority under the first respondent within a period of one month.

¶60

sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶61

css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE

Sindhu.T.S. v. M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sindhu.T.S. v. M/S.Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

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

E.P.Eswaran Namboothiri Vs State of Kerala

Santha Vs Director, Kudumbasree Mission

P.Mohanan Pillai Vs the Manickal Grama Panchayat

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Ajayakumar

K.Sasidharan Vs Kseb

P.K.Abdul Latheef Vs Board of Control of the Orphanages