IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 1607 of 2011() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.16090/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------------- 1. THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD; REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682 036 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD; COCHIN DIVISIONAL OFF PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,KOCHI-682 036 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. LILLY M.D, MANIKKANAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR,ERNAKULAM 682 315 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM 682 030 3. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, SASTRI BHAVAN,NEW DELHI 110 001 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 5. K.K.RAJASREE, MECHERIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O.,ERNAKULAM 682 315 ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA FOR R3 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WA.NO.1616 OF 2011 ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Ag. CJ. & P.S.GOPINATHAN, J ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1607 of 2011 & W.A.No. 1616 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, Ag.CJ. The connected Writ Appeals, one by the awardee of dealership for retail petroleum business and other by the Indian Oil Corporation, which has selected the appellant in the connected case, are filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge cancelling the allotment of a petrol pump to the appellant in W.A.No.1616 of 2011 in preference to the 6th respondent therein. 2. We have heard counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and also counsel appearing for the 6th respondent in W.A.No.1616 of 2011. 3. After going through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and after hearing counsel appearing for all the parties, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge interfering with the selection of a person for starting retail outlet WA.1607 & 1616/11 2 merely on the ground that the location is different from what was notified. The Company, while making advertisement, decided to start the retail outlet in Amballur. Appellant in W.A.No.1616 of 2011 was found to have the land and facilities for starting retail outlet and accordingly, she was selected for allotment. It is this order that was challenged by the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition contending that the allotment made to the appellant is not in the same area, i.e., Amballur. 4. The learned Single Judge found that even though the location of the appellant is within the Amballur Village, it is not a locality known as Amballur as notified. We do not think, there is any significance for any specific location for starting a retail outlet for sale of petrol and diesel. Marketing Companies take into account the requirement of the outlets based on the vehicular traffic on the road and the locations of existing outlets covering the entire distance of the road. When a notification is issued what is proposed is to open a retail outlet in and around the place notified. Therefore, even if the applicant has land little away from the place known as Amballur, but within a range of one or two kilometers, it makes no difference and in our view, the Court cannot direct the Company to insist on starting the outlet in the same place notified. In fact, in our view, busy junctions and town WA.1607 & 1616/11 3 areas should be avoided while considering the location of petroleum outlets. 5. The 6th respondent has a case that the land offered by the appellant is in the bend of a road and so much so, it should not be preferred as against the land offered by the 6th respondent. All what the Company and the applicant should keep in mind is the possibility of straightening road bypassing curves and if this happens, petroleum outlets started in curves should be shifted. However, if there is no likelihood of any such eventuality, then a petroleum outlet is desirable in a bend, so that when the vehicles go at low speed, they can decide whether to fill fuel or not. We do not find any substance in the challenge made against the allotment order. Consequently, we allow the Writ Appeals by vacating the judgment of the learned Single Judge and restore the impugned order issued by the Indian Oil Corporation in favour of the appellant in W.A.No.1616 of 2011. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE vgs