IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21133 of 2010(N)
1. KOTTAYAM AND IDUKKI DISTRICT PETROLEUM
... Petitioner
2. KES & COMPANY, IOC DELAER, MUNDAKKAYAM
3. JAK & COMPANY, HPC DEALER, K.K.ROAD,
4. THARA PETROLEUM AGENCIES, KADUTHURUTHY
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. M/S.INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
3. M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD
4. THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
5. THE KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION
6. FLUID CONTROL RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SHRI.K.HARILAL, CGC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/08/2010
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
W.P.(C).No.21133 of 2010
==================
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The 1st petitioner is an association of petroleum dealers in Kottayam
and Idukki districts. Petitioners 2 to 4 are petroleum dealers who are
members of the 1st petitioner association. Their grievance in this writ petition
is that oil companies who supply petroleum products to their dealers do not
supply the same in standard litres. They would submit that a standard litre
means one litre of petroleum product at 15 degree centigrade. According to
them, oil companies themselves transact in petroleum products on the basis
of the volume of petroleum products at 15 degree centigrade. But that
practice is not being followed by the oil companies when they supply
petroleum products to the dealers at their outlets, insofar as at the time of
supply of the petroleum products at the outlets, temperature would be far
higher than 15 degree centigrade. The petitioners submit that that would
give the oil companies undue advantage and would give them opportunity to
unjustly enrich themselves. They, therefore, would contend that appropriate
standardization should be made in respect of supply of petroleum products to
their outlets. They would submit that, by Ext.P1, the Government of India
had evolved a standardization process which is not being followed by the oil
companies. Airing their grievances, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P3
representation before the 1st respondent. The petitioners seek a direction to
the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously.
w.p.c.21133/10 2
2. Although I had directed the learned Assistant Solicitor General to
get instructions from the 1st respondent as to whether they have any
objections in their considering Ext.P3, the Assistant Solicitor General now
submits that the file has been handed over to the Central Government
Counsel who has some inconvenience today. It is further submitted that
instructions from the 1st respondent have not yet been received.
Insofar as the only direction called for in this writ petition is to direct
the 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3, I do not think it necessary to
await further instructions from the 1st respondent. Accordingly, this writ
petition is disposed of with the following directions;
The 1st respondent shall take up and pass orders on Ext.P3 after
affording an opportunity of being head to a representative of the petitioners
and the oil companies, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It would
be open to the petitioners to request the 1st respondent to obtain a report in
this matter from the 6th respondent, who is stated to be the expert agency
competent to give advice regarding the matter, which shall also be
appropriately considered by the 1st respondent.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge