IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16362 of 2009(M)
1. J.PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 60 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. J.PRABHASH, AGED 44 YEARS,
Vs
1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
... Respondent
2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
3. J.MOHANDAS, HAPPY FUELS,
4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.KILLIYOOR P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :03/07/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI,J.
-------------------------
W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009
--------------------------
Dated this the 3rd July,2009
J U D G M E N T
Third respondent was licensed as a dealer for
conducting a petrol pump at Vedivachancoil in
Thiruvananthapuram in the SC/ST quota. Petitioners are
brothers of the 3rd respondent. It seems that they had
advanced substantial amounts to 3rd respondent to enable
him to start a petrol pump and also to obtain loan from
the State Bank of Travancore. It further seems that the
dealership of the 3rd respondent has been suspended by
the Oil Company and it has now been entrusted to the 4th
respondent. Petitioners approached the Oil Company
with a request that since they had advanced money to the
3rd respondent and the amount has not been repaid, they
should be permitted to run the petrol pump. This writ
petition has been filed in relation to the said request made
to the Oil company.
W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009
2
2. A statement has been filed on behalf the 2nd
respondent pointing out that the 3rd respondent has invoked
the arbitration clause against the 2nd respondent oil
company, challenging the order of termination of his
dealership and arbitration proceedings are pending. There
is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the 2nd
respondent and hence they are unable to countenance the
request made by the petitioners.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and the
learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent.
4. As pointed out by the 2nd respondent, there is no
privity of contract between the petitioners and 2nd
respondent. If the petitioners have a grievance against
their brother to whom they have allegedly advanced money
and also stood surety for availing loan from a bank, it is up
to them to take steps against the 3rd respondent. This
obviously can be done only before a Civil Court. Second
respondent cannot be compelled to let the petitioners
participate in the running of the petrol pump merely
W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009
3
because the petitioners claim to have advanced money to
the 3rd respondent.
In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ
petition. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to
take appropriate steps in relation to 3rd respondent, the
writ petition is dismissed.
(V.GIRI,JUDGE)
ma
W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009
4
W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009
5