IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1159 of 2009()
1. KUMARI LEKSHMI.T.S.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION (IOC)
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,
3. THE CHIEF L.P.G.MANAGER,
4. THE DIRECTOR (MARKETING)
5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1159 of 2009
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 9th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
Appellant is the petitioner in the writ petition. The writ
petition was filed challenging Exts.P2, P4 and P7 proceedings initiated
by the first respondent terminating her licence for distributorship of
LPG. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition relegating
the petitioner to pursue the remedy under clause 37(a) of Ext.P1
agreement, for arbitration.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant is that the said remedy will not be efficacious, since
the appellant has a case that the principles of natural justice have not
been complied with in taking the impugned action. It is also contended
that in respect of the charges levelled against the appellant for
termination of licence, no opportunity was given to the appellant to
cure the defects. At any rate, it is contended that the lapses are not so
W.A.No.1159 of 2009
– 2 –
grave to attract the extreme penalty of termination since Ext.P1(a) marketing
guidelines have prescribed certain penalties in respect of the lapses.
3. We are unable to take a different view from that of the view
taken by the learned Single Judge despite the persuasive arguments
advanced by the the learned counsel Mr.C.S.Narayanan in view of the
contractual relationship between the parties. We however make it clear that
the consequences of lack of notice and also the consequent action on the
alleged violation of the principles of natural justice are also matters which
should be gone into in the arbitration proceedings as referred to in clause 37
(a) of Ext.P1 since the Arbitrator is entitled to go into any right, liability, act
and omission on account of any of the parties arising out of or in relation to
the agreement. The question of mitigation of penalty can also be raised
before the Arbitrator.
Subject to this observation the writ appeal is dismissed.
S.R.Bannurmath,
Chief Justice
Kurian Joseph,
Judge
vns