IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 26060 of 2008(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- P.V.MOHANAN, AGED 50, VICE CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISHERMAN, MAHIMA, RAVIPURAM , KOCHI. BY ADV. MR.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. DIVISIONAL OFFICER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN DIVISION OFFICE PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI. 2. CHIEF CONSUMER SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. COCHI R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R2 BY ADVS.MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR, MR.K.JOHN MATHAI, MR.P.BENNY THOMAS, MR.ANIL D. NAIR, MR.V.J.ANAND. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.26060/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE DRAFT OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS DTD. 31.3.05. P2:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION LETTER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER 6.9.07. P3:- COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 30.10.07. P4:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 1.11.07. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.26060 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents to afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before taking any action against the high speed diesel pump being run by the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. 3. It is evident from the letter Ext.P4, that the second respondent requested the petitioner to uplift HSD before 15th November, 2007 on continuous basis. Pursuant to Ext.P4 petitioner approached the respondents and it is the case of the petitioner that explanation given by the petitioner was accepted. But on learning that the facility is proposed to be cancelled this writ petition was filed. 4. It is clear from Ext.P1, a copy of the agreement, especially Clause 8 that the petitioner has got the remedy to approach Director Marketing of the Corporation or some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director W.P.(C)No.26060 of 2008 2 Marketing, if any dispute arises between the parties. 5. Therefore, leaving open the remedy to approach the said authority, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE skj