Dismissed

Nisheema Anulal v. Kumari Kuriakose

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016WA/1941/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals by Indian Oil Corporation against a single Judge order granting LPG distributorship to an applicant after finding her original ranking was based on false income information. The High Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the single Judge's finding that applicant's evidence was unreliable due to conflicting testimony from an LPG dealer witness.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed with no costs.

Nisheema Anulal Vs Kumari Kuriakose — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937 WA.No. 1941 of 2011 ( ) IN WP(C).4734/2011 --------------------------------------------

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4734/2011 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 09-03-2006

¶5

APPELLANT(S): -------------

¶6

NISHEEMA ANULAL, VADAKKEYIL HOUSE, KARIKODE VILLAGE, MUTHALAKODAM P.O., THODUPUZHA.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶9

1. KUMARI KURIAKOSE, PAREKUDIYIL HOUSE, RAJAKUMARI SOUTH P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 619. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY CHIEF AREA MANAGER, INDANE AREA OFFICE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-16.

¶10

3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (LPG), INDANE AREA INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-16.

¶11

R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R2-3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.SUKUMARAN (SR.) BY SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶12

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2016, ALONG WITH WA. 297/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶14

ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶15

----------------------------------------------W.A.No.1941 of 2011 & W.A.No.297 of 2012

¶16

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th February, 2016

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Anu Sivaraman, J.

¶19

These appeals arise from the judgment in W.P(C).No.4734 of 2011. First among the captioned appeals is by the third respondent in the writ petition, while W.A.No.297 of 2012 is filed by respondents 1 and 2, the Indian Oil Corporation Limited and its Deputy General Manager. The parties are referred to hereinafter in terms of their status in the writ petition.

¶20

The issue raised is with regard to the eligibility for distributorship in Liquefied Petroleum Gas. The writ petitioner, who is the first respondent in both these appeals, was an applicant for the distributorship as was the 3^rd respondent, the appellant in W.A.1941 of 2011. The applicants were interviewed on 19.12.2008 and 4.9.2009. Exhibit P3 list of empanelled candidates dated 25.9.2009 was published. One Sheena Koshy was ranked first in the list. The third respondent was ranked second and the writ petitioner was third. The writ petitioner preferred complaints against the list and approached this court seeking stay of further proceedings for award of

¶21

¶22

WA.1941/11 & 297/12

¶23

distributorship until her complaint against the list is decided. By Exhibit P5 judgment dated 5.11.2009, the official respondents were directed to hear the writ petitioner and the other two rank holders and take a decision. Pursuant thereto, orders were passed declaring the first rank holder Sheena Koshy to be ineligible, since she did not have land within the territorial limits of operation of the distributorship. The writ petitioner was awarded one more mark for additional qualification and she thus effectively became the first rank holder in the list and the 3^rd respondent was ranked below her. The revised list was published on 11.12.2009.

¶24

Thereafter, a letter dated 5.7.2010 was sent to the writ petitioner by the 2^nd respondent alleging difference in the annual income disclosed by her and seeking her explanation. The writ petitioner thereupon sent Exhibit P7 reply. Thereafter, Exhibit P8 was issued to her to show cause why her application should not be rejected for making a false statement as regards payment of salary. Again, the writ petitioner approached this court and by Exhibit P10 judgment dated 21.12.2010, her reply to the show cause notice was directed to be considered, which led to Exhibit P11 letter declaring her ineligible for award of LPG distributorship on the ground that she had furnished false information with respect to gross annual income of the previous financial year. The writ petitioner relied on Exhibit P12 appointment letter and P13 certificate issued by the Gas Agency, where she was

¶25

¶26

WA.1941/11 & 297/12

¶27

appointed as Front Office Manager, specifically showing consolidated remuneration of Rs.4,500/-.

¶28

A detailed counter affidavit was filed by respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition referring to the facts set out in the writ petition. It was contended that the income from the salary shown by the writ petitioner in her tax returns was incorrect, since M/s.Mathson Gas Services, Kothamangalam, where the petitioner had been employed, had informed the company that she had not been paid any salary for the period in question. The learned single Judge examined the factual aspects of the matter and came to the conclusion that the allegation regarding the false statement given by the petitioner in respect of her income was only a mala fide attempt on the part of the respondents to disqualify her and to award the distributorship to the third respondent in the writ petition. Aggrieved, the respondents have preferred these appeals.

¶29

Heard Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.1941 of 2011, Sri.N.Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in W.A.No.297 of 2012 and Sri M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶30

Having regard to the facts of the case as discernible from the pleadings and the materials on record and having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing in the matter, we find no justifiable reason to interfere with the judgment impugned

¶31

¶32

WA.1941/11 & 297/12

¶33

in these appeals. The learned single Judge has considered the entire factual aspects of the case as is evident from the records. The fact that the allegation of giving false information by the writ petitioner arose only after the likelihood of her being granted the distributorship became imminent on her being placed at rank No.1 in the list has been taken note of by the learned single Judge. It was also noticed that the dealer who had issued Exhibit P12 appointment order and Exhibit P13 salary certificate to the writ petitioner was also an LPG distributor of Indian Oil Corporation and no reliance can be placed on the letter dated 10.6.2010 which was relied upon to disqualify the writ petitioner. In coming to this conclusion, the learned single Judge has thoroughly examined the facts in question and has come to a finding which is supported by a clear statement and reasoning. In our opinion, the judgment of the learned single Judge suffers from no legal infirmity warranting interference under Section 5 of the High Court Act. The writ appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶34

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶35

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

vgs

Nisheema Anulal v. Kumari Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisheema Anulal v. Kumari Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lfa, Tdb Audit, Tvm Vs Secretary, Tdb

Suo Motu Vs Cochin Devaswom Board, Represented by Its Secretary

Sri.E.S.Kishore Vs the Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board

Global United Shipping India Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Service Tax Division

M/S. Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner,Commercial Taxes

M/S.Panasonic India Pvt.Ltd Vs the State of Kerala