IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 WA.No. 2216 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN WPC.30424/2008 Dated 23/10/2008 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M/S.M.P.FAKRUDEEN SAHIB, DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685587, REP.BY ITS PROPRIETOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., 17,JAMSHEDJI TATAROAD, MUMBAI-400020, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HPCL LTD., ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., ERNAKULAM - 18. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, CENTRAL SECRETRIAT, NEW DELHI. BY ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR SRI.E.K. NANDAKUMAR - SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2216 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.DATTU, C.J. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C). No.30424/2008 is the subject matter of this writ appeal. (2) Petitioner/appellant was a dealer of the first respondent Corporation. His dealership licence was kept under suspension by an order passed by the first respondent on 26.9.2007. After holding an enquiry, an order has been passed by the first respondent cancelling the dealership licence to the appellant. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant was before this Court on an earlier occasion. (3) This Court had disposed of that writ petition and had directed the respondents to reconsider the case, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (4) After the disposal of the writ petition, the respondent, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed yet another order cancelling the retail dealership licence of the petitioner/appellant. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner had filed Ext.P8 appeal before the appellate authority, as provided in the 2 W.A.No.2216/08 guidelines issued by the Corporation. The appellate authority by order dated 3.10.2008 has rejected the appeal and thereby, has confirmed the orders passed by the Senior Divisional Manager of the Corporation. (5) Petitioner, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the appellate authority in MDG.A.No.12/2008 dated 3.10.2008, is before this Court in W.P.(C).No.30424/2008. The learned Single Judge after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2, has passed the following order. It reads as under: “I take note of the fact that the sales through the petitioner's outlet remains suspended for almost more than a year. I am of the view that it would not be the interest of any of the parties concerned, if such sales remain suspended any further. In the result, it will be open to R1 and R2 to resume sales through the said outlet. But, it is made clear that any arrangement in this regard shall be provisional and shall be subject to further orders to be passed in this writ petition. In the event of any other person being engaged in this behalf by R1 and R2, the letter of intent or the order of appointment shall clearly specify that such engagement is on provisional basis and it will be subject to the final result of the writ petition.” (6) Aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, petitioner has presented this writ appeal. (7) Sri.K.P. Dandapani, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant 3 W.A.No.2216/08 would contend that the appellant was holding the dealership licence from last five and a half decades, and for the first time, his licence has been kept under suspension only on 26.9.2007 and thereafter, that has been cancelled by the Senior Divisional Manager. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the learned judge ought not have permitted respondents 1 and 2 to resume sales through the retail outlet, in which the appellant was doing business earlier. (8) We cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel Sri. K.P. Dandapani for the following reasons: (9) It is an admitted fact that on 26.9.2007 the petitioner/appellant is not running the retail outlet. May be, being of the opinion that closing of the retail outlet would cause public inconvenience, the leaned Single Judge has thought it fit to permit respondents 1 and 2 to run the retail outlet through any other agency and that arrangement is purely on provisional basis. In the order passed, the learned Single Judge has taken care of and has protected the interest of the petitioner. Any arrangement made by respondents 1 and 2 during the pendency of the writ petition is only provisional and if for any reason the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition, the learned Single Judge could direct respondents 1 and 2 to handover possession of retail outlet to the petitioner forthwith. In that view of the matter, while confirming the order 4 W.A.No.2216/08 passed by the learned Single Judge, we decline to entertain this writ appeal. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE cl