Dismissed

Leju Saji Kumar v. the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gases

Kerala HC9 Nov 2017WP(C)/23834/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a SC woman entrepreneur, sought re-allocation of a defunct retail outlet after cancellation of her initial Letter of Intent. The Court held that the scheme requires taking risks and the petitioner opted for unviable units after being offered better options. The cancellation was upheld and the writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No re-allocation of an outlet granted; cancellation of the Letter of Intent upheld; writ petition dismissed.

Leju Saji Kumar Vs the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/18TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 23834 of 2017 (D) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

LEJU SAJI KUMAR, W/O.A.K.SAJIKUMAR,AGED 40,ANCHANAYIL, MANIMALA.P.O,KOTTAYAM,PIN-686543.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GASES, SASTHRI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI,PIN-110001.

¶11

2. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES)REG. OFFICE.17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD,MUMBAI,PIN-400020.

¶12

3. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISES),P.B.NO.1601, RETAIL REGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM NORTH, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682018. R1 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI JAYAMOHAN R2-R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.V.

¶14

WP(C).No. 23834 of 2017 (D)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/1/2013 ISSUED BY THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE 2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/2/2017 SEND BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	THE LETTER DATED 14/3/2017 SEND BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	THE LETTER DATED 12/07/2017,SEND BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/07/2017 SEND BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.7.2017 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
R2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DATED 2.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
R2(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.4.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER OFFERING AN ALTERNATE LOCATION FOR OPERATING RETAIL OUTLET.
R2(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
R2(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.7.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
R2(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 17.10.2013 (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES)
R2(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
R2(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.4.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
R2(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6.2.2017 ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSURES ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
R2(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.2.2017 (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶17

WP(C).No. 23834 of 2017 (D)

¶18

R2(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶19

R2(K) TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION CUM-UNDERTAKING DATED 18.3.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/

¶20

K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE

¶21

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶22

===================== W.P.(C)No.23834 of 2017-D

¶23

========================== Dated this the 09^th day of November, 2017

¶24

Judgment

¶25

The petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of

¶26

the outlet granted to the petitioner as a women entrepreneur and a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) community. The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, the 1^st respondent had framed a scheme, for uplifting Scheduled Caste entrepreneur's. The petitioner belonging to a SC community applied under Scheduled Caste (Women) category. The petitioner was granted a letter of intent, dated 02.04.2012, and the Company was required to find a suitable location in Pampady-Kodungur within Kottayam District. As per the scheme on identification of the land, with the financial support offered by the petroleum Company the chosen entrepreneur could establish a Company Owned Company Operated (COCO) retail

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No.23834/2017

¶29

outlet, financed by the Company and run by the entrepreneur.

¶30

After the letter of intent was granted to the petitioner, the Company was unable to identify a suitable property in Pambady-Kodungur Road at Kottayam District. Hence the petitioner was issued with Ext.P1 order as per the directions of the Ministry. The petitioner was directed to find out a suitable location anywhere in the country, where the privileges as available to a SC community would be extended by the Company, as offered in Ext.P1. The petitioner did not take up the said offer. Again the Company extended an offer by way of providing certain outlets, which, for various reasons were rendered defunct, to be taken over and operated. The petitioner chose one which was practicably impossible to be recommenced for reason of various reasons and was not economically viable. The 13 units offered as seen from annexure A-9 are all beset with problems and the Corporation suppressed

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.23834/2017

¶33

other units run on adhoc basis. The petitioner hence seeks re-allocation of one of the three outlets run on an adhoc basis at Trivandrum, Kollam or Irumpanam or any other outlet which is encumbrance free.

¶34

At the outset it is to be noticed that the scheme of preferential allotment does not envisage a choice and when existing units are allotted it is for the respondent Corporation to identify those units which could be so allotted. When a suitable location could not be identified in the petitioners area of choice, the petitioner was offered another unit at Adoor as per Annexure R2 (b); which the petitioner refused to take up. The petitioner also has not disclosed such offer in the memorandum of writ petition. Subsequently the petitioner was permitted a choice anywhere in India subject to her identifying a suitable location. The petitioner has produced that offer at Ext.P1; which obviously was not acted upon.

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No.23834/2017

¶37

The Corporation then under a different scheme,

¶38

termed the Corpus Fund Scheme, offered a choice to recommence one of the 13 units. The SC members, who had applied and were not able to be granted the privilege was directed to make three choices from a list of 13 outlets, which were lying defunct on the same conditions as per the scheme. The petitioner made three options as seen from Annexure R2(h). The petitioner by Annexure R2(h) opted first for Ms/HSD Madhavan Pillai, Adhoc, Vithura, Thlikodu Village, Nedumangad, Trivandrum - 695551, which is shown as the 11^th item in Annexure R2(h). The petitioner was granted her first option. It is also pointed out that the letter of undertaking specifically had a clause that if there are any litigations pending on the allotted outlet the allottee would concede to the orders passed by the Court. The Corporation hence was attempting revival of units by allotment to willing entrepreneurs.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No.23834/2017

¶41

The petitioner was then directed to approach the Ministry of MOP & NG for obtaining the LOI with respect to the outlet. There was a LOI handing over function; organized at Delhi. The petitioner was erequested to proceed to Delhi for getting the LOI. The petitioner however was not willing, the cause for which the petitioner asserts is reason of the retail outlet being unvialble. It is also stated that her family consisting of herself and three children would face dislocation. In such circumstance, the petitioner was issued with a cancellation as per Ext.P6, during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner argues that there are other retail outlets, which have been specifically noticed wherein the operators are ad-hoc and these could be considered for allotment to the petitioners.

¶42

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent

¶43

specifically on instructions submits that the three pumps as pointed out by the petitioner do not come under the COCO retail

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No.23834/2017

¶46

outlet units, which alone could be granted to the persons under the Corpus Fund Scheme for SC community. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner was first given an option to take an outlet at Adoor, then to identify a suitable location anywhere in the country and then an offer to opt for three of the pumps as per a list given of 13 COCO retail outlet units. The petitioner opted for three, the first of which was at Vithura. The first offer was granted to the petitioner and the petitioner cannot now turn around and say that it is not a viable outlet. In fact before opting, the petitioner should have verified as to the viability of the units and in such circumstance, the petitioner cannot now turn around and contend that she be granted another retail outlet.

¶47

Further though a scheme offering a preference to SC members and women among them was mooted; essentially the preferred person ought to take up certain risks and the

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.23834/2017

¶50

essential attribute required in the person is entrepreneurship. The motivation and object of the scheme is to uplift the members of the SC community and the petitioner cannot assert any right to be allotted an economically viable unit, near to her residence; without fear of dislocating her family. Considering the submission of the respondent that none of the three units as pointed by the petitioner in the writ petition are COCO units, which could be granted under the Corpus Fund Scheme, this Court is unable to issue any directions for such consideration.

¶51

The cancellation of the petitioners letter of intent, on the facts revealed is also proper.

¶52

The writ petition would stand dismissed. No costs.

¶53

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶54

SB/10/11/2017

¶55

// true copy //

¶56

P.A to Judge

Leju Saji Kumar v. the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gases

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leju Saji Kumar v. the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gases

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

Sandhya Kunjumon Vs the District Collector

M/S Jvj Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dmrc Kochi Metro Project

Annakutty Vs Sub Registrar, Kattappana

Abdul Mujeeb P. Vs the Union Territory

S.Jayasree Vs State of Kerala

Padmini Vs State of Kerala