IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 1958 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12710/2008 DATED 13/08/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- JACOB.K.JACOB, MANAGING PARTNER, MANNARKAD FILLING STATION, MANNARKAD, RESIDING AT KARIPAPARAMBIL, PAYYANADAM.P.O, MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) & SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI. 2. M/S.BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, BHARATH BHAVAN, 476, BALLARD ESTATE, BOMBAY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. V.P.MUHAMMED AYOOB, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, EDAVANNA AMSOM, ERANJIKODE, MALAPPURAM. 4. THE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS, FOURTEENTH LOK SABHA, LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. R1 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR) & SRI.S.SUJIN R3 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1958 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 16th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.12710 of 2008 dated 13.8.2008. (2) Petitioner is running a petroleum outlet as a dealer of the second respondent – M/s.Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited ('Corporation' for short). He has filed W.P.(C) No.12710 of 2008. In the writ petition, the primary relief that is sought for by the petitioner is to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the Committee on Petitions (Parliamentary Committee) dated 20.3.2008. The other relief is to restrain the respondents from evicting the petitioner from the property in Sy.No.105/3 of Mannarkadu Village pending disposal of O.S.No.180 of 2003 pending on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ottappalam. (3) The brief facts are:- The petroleum outlet run by the petitioner is on the premises originally leased to M/s. Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Company of India Limited. The said Company is taken over by the first respondent and thereafter it is entrusted to the second respondent M/s.Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited. The period of lease that was granted earlier was extended upto 30.11.2003 as W.A.No.1958 of 2008 2 per the judgment and decree in O.S.No.146 of 1986 of the learned Munsiff's Court, Mannarkad. (4) The third respondent who is now the owner of the property in Sy.No.105/3 of Mannarkad Village, has approached the Sub Court, Ottappalam for recovery of possession of the property by filing a civil suit. The same is pending. (5) The third respondent has also filed a petition before the 4th respondent, namely the Chairman, Committee on Petitions, Fourteenth Lok Sabha, Lok Sabha Secretariat, New Delhi, seeking a direction to the second respondent to vacate the premises. (6) The 4th respondent by its proceedings dated 20.3.2008 has observed as under: “After due consideration of facts enumerated above, particularly the fact that the BPCL had assured that the issue will be settled within a period of four months and since then one month has already elapsed and the fact that petitioner's land does not fall in 'critical site' category, the Committee desire that the issue may be settled by the Ministry/BPCL immediately with the petitioner so that the said site may be vacated within a period of three months. The committee also recommend that dues of the petitioner be calculated on market rate and paid to him forthwith. The Committee would like to be apprised of the action taken in W.A.No.1958 of 2008 3 the matter within a period of three months.” (7) It is this observation of the Parliamentary Committee that is taken exception to by the petitioner, who is a licensee running a retail outlet with the permission of the second respondent Corporation ('BPCL' for short). (8) The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on two counts, firstly that the petitioner cannot be an aggrieved person by the findings of the Parliamentary Committee and further, he has stated that there is no direction as such by the Committee to the BPCL and they have only noted the undertaking that was given by the BPCL before the Parliamentary Committee. (9) Aggrieved by the findings and the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal. (10) Sri.K.Ramakumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that when the matter is pending before the civil court for adjudication, the Parliamentary Committee ought not to have taken any decision with regard to the site which is leased out to the BPCL. In support of his submission, he has brought to our notice clause 13.2 of the Parliamentary Procedure and Parliamentary Privileges. Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the proceedings W.A.No.1958 of 2008 4 of the Parliamentary Committee is vitiated. (11) The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that during the pendency of the original suit before the civil court, the BPCL should be restrained from taking any proceedings against the petitioner/licensee. (12) In this appeal filed by the licensee, we need not have to consider the correctness or otherwise of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. (13) The third respondent who is the present owner of the property which has been leased out to BPCL has approached the Parliamentary Committee with a request to direct the BPCL to surrender the land which is in their possession. After initial resistance, now the BPCL has agreed to surrender vacant possession of the property in question to the third respondent within three months' time from the date of the order passed by the Parliamentary Committee. The Parliamentary Committee has only noticed that the BPCL will apprise them the action taken by the BPCL within a period of three months, in Ext.P4 order. (14) The appellant claims that he is a licensee running a retail petroleum outlet with the assistance of an authorisation issued by BPCL. The licensor has not yet taken any proceedings against the licensee and therefore, the appellant cannot have any grievance so far as W.A.No.1958 of 2008 5 the proceedings held by the Parliamentary Committee. Before we part with the case, we intend to observe that any proceedings that BPCL may take to comply with its undertaking before the Parliamentary Committee shall only be in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk.