Petitioner sought LPG distributorship; location approved later withdrawn. Court held respondent estopped from rejecting approved site and directed issue of letter of intent.
Quashed Ext.P11; Directed respondent to issue letter of intent within two months approving godown location.
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 A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936
WP(C).No. 277 of 2014 (H)
PETITIONER(S):
HASEENA P., W/O.UMMER E.K., ERAKKADAVATH HOUSE, MUZHANNAMANNA, P.O. ANAMANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 357.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SMT.GRACY POULOSE SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S):
THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED (IOCL), INDANE AREA OFFICE AT IIND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, CIVIL STATION PO., WYNAD ROAD, KOZHIKODE - 673 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF AREA MANAGER
BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
WP(C).No. 277 of 2014 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.08.2012 FROM THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
Ms v/
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2014
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2015
J U D G M E N T
Alleging that the respondent company refused to
issue letter of intent approving the dealership of the petitioner, she has come up before this Court.
..2..
W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2014
Panchayat Building Rules, which came into effect on 14.02.2011, it became impossible for the petitioner to construct a godown building of specified dimension in the land mentioned in her application, which was submitted before 31.01.2011, the last date for submitting the application for distributorship. Therefore, the petitioner made a request to construct godown in an alternative site within the notified location complying with all requirements in the notification. The petitioner further alleges that she was allowed to construct godown in the alternative site located in Anamangad Village in Aliparamba Gramapanchayath. However, the respondent did not issue the letter of intent in approving dealership; and on enquiry, the petitioner was given to understand that it was because, she has constructed godown in Anamangad Village in Aliparamba panchayath and the notification was intended only for Aliparamba Village. This, according to the petitioner, is unreasonable and unsustainable. It is with this background, she has come
W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2014
..3..
up before this Court.
W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2014
..4..
of intent to the petitioner.
on the ground that the present site owned by the petitioner is not in Aliparamba Panchayath. The respondent interprets the advertisement inviting application as in respect of the revenue village of Aliparamba and not as Aliparamba Gramapanchayath. Ext.P10 is the notification issued by the respondent inviting applications. On a perusal of Ext.P10, it can be seen that the notification does not say that the application was for the revenue village of Aliparamba. In fact, the petitioner applied for distributorship for Aliparamba Gramapanchayath as rightly submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. However, the petitioner, also while submitting application, shown her godown, as per Ext.P3, in Anamangad Village in
..5..
W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2014
Aliparamba Gramapanchayath; and letter of intent was also given approving location as per Ext.P3. It is consequent upon implementation of the new Panchayat Rules, the petitioner sought to shift the location, which was allowed as per Ext.P6. Therefore, there is no basis in stating that the location of the godown in Anamangad Village in Aliparamba Gramapanchayath is opposite to the notification. Pending writ petition, the petitioner received a communication dated 15.01.2014 from the respondent stating that the letter of intent is withdrawn, which is produced as Ext.P11. The petitioner points out that Ext.P11 is unsustainable in law. The respondent, as per Ext.P2, approved the application by the petitioner with reference to location of godown in Anamangad Village in Aliparamba Gramapanchayath as shown in Ext.P3 sketch. Therefore, the respondent is estopped from rejecting the new location after approval of the same as per Exts.P2 and P6. It is also crucial to note that the petitioner, having acted upon the respondent's
W.P.(C) No. 277 of 2014
..6..
promise, expended more than ₹40,00,000/- for construction of the godown; and therefore, the respondent is estopped from rejecting the application of the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
● It is hereby declared that the location of the petitioner's godown at Anamangad Village in Aliparamba Gramapanchayath is in conformity with Ext.P10 notification.
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
bka/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent is estopped from rejecting the petitioner's site after approving it previously.
Whether the petitioner's godown location is in conformity with the notification inviting applications.
Whether the withdrawal of the letter of intent by the respondent is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Haseena P.
The Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL)
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
