IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 13086 of 2011(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SATHEESAN KALLATH, BLUE FAME AGENCIES, BHARAT GAS DISTRUBUTOR, KALANAD COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KASARAGOD, RESIDING AT KALLATH HOUSE, EYYAKKAD, UDINOOR, TRIKARIPUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTs: --------------- 1. THE TERRITORY MANAGER (LPG), BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, MANGALORE-575 011. 2. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, NEW DELHI-110 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R3 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1,2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1,2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1,2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1,2 SRI.P.GOPINATH FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13086 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, who was appointed as Liquefied Petroleum Gas Distributor at Kasaragod by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited way back in the year 1996 has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P11 letter dated 18.3.2011 whereby the first respondent terminated the dealership agreement. The petitioner also seeks an order directing the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioner to continue as the distributor. 2. The agreement between the petitioner and the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited was terminated on the ground that after appointment as distributor, the petitioner took up employment as P.D.Teacher in Government Higher Secondary School, South Trikarpur and thereby he violated clause 23(C)(ii) of the distributorship agreement, which is produced as Ext.P2. The main contention in the writ petition is that clause 23(C)(ii) cannot be invoked and that shortly after the letter of termination was issued, the resignation tendered by the petitioner on 8.4.2009 was accepted by the Deputy Director of Education with effect from that date. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, the WPC No.13086/2011 2 learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P12 letter accepting the resignation tendered by the petitioner was issued only on 23.3.2011, that the petitioner is now unemployed and therefore reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the competent authority among the respondents seeking reconsideration of the impugned decision, the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. In the light of the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty with the petitioner to move the competent authority among the respondents seeking reconsideration of Ext.P11 decision. Needless to say, in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation in that regard, the competent authority among the respondents shall consider the same and dispose it of at the earliest. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps