IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 35912 of 2009(H)
1. SAJUNATH K.S., AGED 39, S/O.SOMANATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED,
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L.P.G.)
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)
For Respondent :E.K.NANDAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :29/11/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to a notification issued by the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited, the petitioner, a scheduled caste candidate,
applied for LPG distributorship. The petitioner was selected and
appointed as LPG Distributor at Kelakom in Kannur District.
Thereupon Ext.P2 letter of intent was also issued on 26.2.2009.
Later on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact
that his wife is a partner of a firm which is an LPG Distributor of
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the letter of intent was withdrawn by
Ext.P13 letter dated 2.12.2009 and the petitioner was declared
ineligible for award of distributorship. Ext.P13 is under challenge
in this writ petition.
2. Though a large number of contentions are raised in this
writ petition, when the writ petition came up for final hearing
today, Sri.K.P.Dandapani, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for
the petitioner submitted that before Ext.P13 was issued and the
letter of intent was withdrawn the petitioner was not put to notice
W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009
-:2:-
or given an opportunity to explain the allegation that his wife is a
partner of a firm “Deepam Indane Services” at Sreekantapuram in
Kannur district. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
petitioner has filed a criminal complaint evidenced by Ext.P9 in the
Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba alleging
that the partners of the said firm have falsely created a
partnership deed showing his wife also as a partner, that the said
complaint was referred to the Police for investigation under
section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Police
have registered a crime and that the case is being investigated.
The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the circumstances
under which the partnership deed, which is relied on in Ext.P13,
came to be executed have been adequately explained in Ext.P9
complaint and that if the third respondent, who issued Ext.P13,
had given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard or put him
on notice, the petitioner should have explained the circumstances
under which the said partnership deed came to be in existence.
The learned Senior Advocate submitted relying on Ext.P8 that as a
matter of fact it was on the advice of the Senior Area Manager of
the Indian Oil Corporation that Ext.P9 complaint was filed. The
learned Senior Advocate submitted that in such circumstances it is
W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009
-:3:-
only just and proper that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity
to meet the allegations in Ext.P13.
3. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for
respondents 2 and 3 submitted that it was because the petitioner
had suppressed the fact that his wife is a partner of a firm which
is an LPG Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., that the letter
of intent was withdrawn and that such withdrawal of the letter of
intent was under clause 17 of the application form wherein the
petitioner had declared that he has not concealed any material
fact. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3
submitted that it is not the practice of the Indian Oil Corporation
to issue notice and hear the applicant before a letter of intent is
cancelled.
4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar
by the learned counsel on either side. It is evident from Ext.P8
letter issued by the Senior Area Manager of the Indian Oil
Corporation Limited that the said officer had advised the petitioner
to file a complaint against the individual who had allegedly forged
and fabricated the partnership deed and submit a copy of the FIR
for the records of the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner
accordingly filed Ext.P9 complaint before the Judicial First Class
W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009
-:4:-
Magistrate, Taliparamba, which was referred to the Police for
investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Ext.P10 FIR was thereupon registered alleging various
offences under the Indian Penal Code against Sri.Benny
Augustine, son of Augustine and Smt.Celine, W/o.Benny
Augustine. The petitioner has in Ext.P9 complaint also referred to
the fact that there were no transactions between the petitioner
and the accused in the said crime. He has also given an
explanation as to why such a partnership deed was brought about.
In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the third
respondent ought to have put the petitioner on notice about the
proposal to cancel the letter of intent and afforded him an
opportunity to state his case. That having admittedly not being
done I am of the opinion that the second respondent should
reconsider the matter.
I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P13 and
direct that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate
representation before the third respondent within two weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the said
officer shall, if he is the competent authority, consider the same
and pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. If
W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009
-:5:-
the third respondent is of the opinion that he is not the competent
authority to take a decision in the matter he shall forward the
representation to the competent authority within one week from
the date of receipt of such representation and the competent
authority shall take a decision thereon in accordance with law. A
final decision in the matter shall be taken expeditiously and in any
event within one month from the date on which the third
respondent or the competent authority receives the
representation. Needless to say, the competent authority shall
also afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person
before a decision is taken in the matter.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.
ahg.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
—————————
W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009
—————————-
JUDGMENT
29th November, 2010