IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32375 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KUMARI LEKSHMI T.S., AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.N.S.SUBHASH, USRA 19, UDARASIROMONY ROAD, NEAR POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 010. BY ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY SRI.ABU MATHEW SRI.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (LPG), INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400 051. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI - 682 036. BY ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 AND R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.32375 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was a distributor of Liquified Petroleum Gas marketed by the Indian Oil Corporation. The dealership was terminated by Ext.P1 notice dated 11.7.2008. The petitioner challenged the termination of the agency by filing W.P.(C) No.22607 of 2008 in this Court. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 7.4.2009, the writ petition was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the Arbitration clause in the agreement. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal. By Ext.P3 judgment, the writ appeal was dismissed and Ext.P2 judgment was confirmed. Long thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the Executive Director (LPG), in the registered office of the Indian Oil Corporation at Mumbai, relying on Ext.P5 joint surprise check report prepared by the Indian Oil Corporation along with officers of the Central Bureau of Investigation based on the information received by the Superintendent of Police about the deliberate manipulation of records, diversion of domestic gas LPG cylinders for non domestic use and the shortage of LPG cylinders within the jurisdiction of the Area Managers of the Indian Oil Corporation at Cochin and Calicut. In Ext.P6 representation, the petitioner also requested for restoration of W.P.(C) No.32375/2010 2 distributionship contending that Ext.P5 report would show that the inspection report submitted by Sri.T.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager (LPG Sales), IOC, Thiruvananthapuram, after inspection on 14.11.2007 which led to the termination of the agreement, could not have been acted upon. The petitioner contended relying on Ext.P5 report that the shortage of 42 cylinders as noticed by the said officer on 14.11.2007 was sufficiently explained by her and that the 42 empty cylinders were lying in her own vehicle. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation and to take an appropriate decision thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Sri.Ashok.B.Shenoy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on Ext.P5 report that the claim of Sri.T.Ramachandran, Deputy Manager (LPG Sales), IOC, in his report dated 14.11.2007 about the shortage of cylinders cannot be relied upon. The relevant portion of the Ext.P5 report relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reads as follows:- “On 14.11.2007 an inspection of M/s.Mass Fuels, the LPG distributor was conducted by Shri.T.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager (LPG Sales), IOC, Thiruvananthapuram and the irregularities noted therein as below: W.P.(C) No.32375/2010 3 1. The surprise inventory reveals a shortage of 106 LPG cylinders of 14.2 Kg. and 71 numbers of 19 Kg. (The inspection report prepared by Shri.T.Ramachandran was signed by the LPG Distributor, Smt.T.S.Lekshmi with the remarks “during backlog time we had sufficient stock. Our refill supply starts at 7 AM and we took cylinder from the godown at 6.10 onwards. Nowadays our working hrs had extended upto 11 PM. Now our SO instructed not to take cylinder before 7 AM. We had picked up 64 cylinder in the early morning and 42 empty lying in our own vehicle”, which was signed and sealed as the Proprietrix in the Surprise Inventory Report). It is revealed from the Report dated 6.12.07 by Shri.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager (LPG), Sales the said LPG distributor could not explain the shortage of 42 empty cylinders at the go-down. However, the inspection of the vehicle, since claimed by her to be containing the 42 empty cylinders was not attended by Shri.T.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager, as he has recorded that the claim does not seem to be true as the earlier surprise inventory done on 5.7.07 which revealed similar shortages and that this distributor was levelling wild allegations against IOC. He recommended appropriate action for the lapses noted in the inspection report and also to issue show cause notice for the equipment shortage. The inspection carried out by Shri.S.Chandran, then Chief LPG Manager on 14.11.07 also reveals irregularities as reported by him to the Deputy Manager (LPG), Trivandrum and Chief Area Manager, Cochin.” 3. In my opinion, the aforesaid statements do not mean that the report submitted by Sri.T.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager (LPG Sales), IOC, Thiruvananthapuram, after inspection on 14.11.2007 is W.P.(C) No.32375/2010 4 without any substance. The statements in Ext.P5 extracted above would only reveal that the petitioner contended before the officers who have prepared Ext.P5 report that her claim that 42 empty cylinders were lying in her vehicle was not attended to by Sri.T.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager (LPG Sales), IOC, Thiruvananthapuram. In my opinion, in view of the finality attaching to Exts.P2 and P3 judgments of this Court, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the inspection report submitted by Sri.T.Ramachandran, Dy.Manager (LPG Sales), IOC, Thiruvananthapuram, after inspection on 14.11.2007 cannot be relied on. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.