IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2011 / 13TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 14279 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SUKU, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, HOUSE NO.46, KARITHALA PARAMBIL, C.P.UMMER ROAD, KOCHI-682035. 2. C.P.SASIKUMAR, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE N.P.PACHU PILLAI, 26/1557, CHALENCHERRY ROAD, THEVARA-13. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CITY GAS AGENCIES, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682015, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-682036, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, SC SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON 04/07/2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14279 of 2011(H) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REGARDING INTRODUCTION OF INTERACTIVE VOICE SYSTEM (IVRS) EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KeSO.LPG.272(A)(8)RTI/495 DATED 16.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO A CONSUMER. EXT.P3 ; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P.(C) 2623/2011 OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 4th July, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners, who are consumers of the liquified petroleum Gas manufactured and marketed by the second respondent under the trade name 'Indane' and made available through the outlet of the first respondent, are stated as aggrieved of the recent introduction of a new system for booking and delivery of the cylinders as notified vide Ext. P1. 2. The grievance of the petitioners appears to be that they used to book for getting refilled gas cylinders either directly or by telephone. But recently, as per Ext. P1, the second respondent introduced a system by name “Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) for supply of refilled gas cylinders for consumers in Kochi city, which according to the petitioners is liable to be intercepted in view of the disadvantages rather than the advantages, stated as brought in. 3. Admittedly, the said system was introduced by the second respondent in Kochi city, for the first time in Kerala. As W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 2 per the landline booking, the booking can be effected by the consumers either by making use of the mobile phones or by the landline and under both the schemes by way of 'SMS' or 'IVRS', the consumers will receive a return SMS to confirm their booking and another return 'SMS' separately to confirm their cylinder delivery. The case of the petitioners is that they are not much literate to make use of the electronic media and further that changes have been introduced by the second respondent without any sanction from the competent authority, which hence is sought to be intercepted. 4. The second respondent has filed a statement, pointing out the salient features of the newly introduced 'IVRS' facility and such other facilities introduced as per Ext. P1. It is stated that the said system has been introduced to serve the customers in a better manner by way of added advantage and facilities and to check the malpractices being pursued by the intermediaries, if any, including the retail distributor and also to see that the LPG which is a highly subsidised item intended for the supply to be effected to the consumers, is not deviated to reach the W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 3 commercial or industrial aspirants. It is further stated that the new system has been introduced by all the three Public Sector Oil Marketing Companies in India such as Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, besides the second respondent; on the basis of the guidelines and directives of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MOP & NG ), Govt. of India, issued to the Oil Marketing Companies through the minutes of the Meeting dated 16.10.2009 and 7.4.2010. The apprehension expressed from the part of the petitioners as to the curtailment of the existing arrangement in making use of the landline for the booking and also by approaching the dealer directly is also stated as misconceived or unfounded, referring to the actual facts and figures. Besides rebutting the averments/allegations as to the discrimination stated as being extended to some of the consumers in a particular category, it is asserted in the statement that the said scheme is applicable even to the employees of the second respondent Corporation and that the allegation to the contrary is devoid of any merit or bonafides. It is further contended that the system was introduced W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 4 w.e.f. 01.02.2010 and that the petitioners have approached this Court nearly 15 months thereafter and as such, no interference is liable to be made, also placing reliance on the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi, declining interference in a similar case, filed as W.P.(C) 2623 of 2011, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure- A. The petitioners have filed a reply affidavit virtually reiterating the contentions in the writ petition. 5. Heard Smt. Sumathy Dandapani the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent. 6. It is revealed from the materials on record that the new system of 'SMS/IVRS' booking was introduced by Ext. P1 Circular as early as on 01.02.2010 and the petitioners have sought to challenge the same by approaching this Court only '1¼' years thereafter. As such, there is culpable delay on the part of the petitioners and the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not proper to be invoked herein, being not a fit case in this regard. W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 5 7. Coming to the merits of the case, it is to be noted that the said system was introduced by the second respondent Company on the basis of the specific guidelines issued by the concerned Ministry, as pleaded in paragraph 3 of the statement filed by the second respondent. That apart, it was also sought to be introduced by all the three Oil Marketing Companies including the second respondent, giving effect to the guidelines and directives issued by the Ministry, as per the minutes of the meeting held on 16.10.2009 and 07.04.2010. The other two Oil marketing Companies are not parties to the present proceedings. That apart, the said system was introduced by way of providing more facilities to the customers to avoid manual error and also to avoid misuse of customers' connection by third parties and further as a matter of policy. As such, the challenge raised with regard to the lack of competence or sanction is of no avail. 8. As explained by the second respondent in the statement, as per the new system, a customer can book LPG refills through SMS and IVRS. There is an option for the customer to register 3 of their phone numbers (Cell Phone numbers, landline numbers W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 6 or combinations of both) for booking through the IVRS. A customer booking through the IVRS system is given a system generated reference number for the booking, once the booking is completed. A customer booking through SMS receives an SMS acknowledgement giving the booking number once the booking request is accepted by the system. In the highly unlikely scenario that a customer does not have access to a mobile phone/landline, he can go to the distributor's premises and book the LPG refill, free of cost, through the Fixed Wireless Phone (FWP) kept at the distributor's premises. While using the FWP, the customer is asked the same questions which were asked earlier by the staff. By virtue of this new system, refill booking is open for 24 hours on all 365 days of the year. The system empowers the customers to seek immediate status/information regarding bookings and delivery of refill. The 2nd respondent will also be able to respond to any customer queries and redress customer complaints very quickly and effectively, as the information of each customer/booking will be available with the designated officials. W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 7 9. It is further pointed out that under the new booking system, a customers call/SMS goes first to the server and then to the distributor's system. Therefore, even if the distributor's system fails, the booking is stored in the server and later on transferred to the distributor's system once it is functional. In the earlier system, if the system of the distributor was not functional the customer was not able to register the booking. This situation now stands rectified by the new system. 10. Incidentally, it has been pointed out that the system has many other advantages as well and that if a customer has not taken the refills for a continuous period of six months, the connection will be deactivated for the safety purpose and to avoid misuse by others. Even in such a case, the customer is at liberty to apply for reactivation, as and when necessitated and on verification of the identity and address proof of the customer, the connection will be revalidated after checking the equipment for safety purpose, which is stated as purely a policy decision and has no connection with the refill booking. 11. This Court finds that the domestic LPG is a highly W.P.(C) No. 14279 OF 2011 8 subsidised item and the attempt of the second respondent in introducing Ext.P1 booking system is only with a responsibility to deliver the cylinders to genuine and targetted customers, making use of the latest technology, where the system can track down the telephone numbers and identify the bogus calls over a period of time, thus avoiding any manipulation and diversion of domestic cylinders for commercial/industrial/automotive use, confining the supply of domestic LPG Cylinders for the specified purpose and thus to serve the Community at a large in a better and effective manner. 12. In the above circumstance, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition. None of the rights of the petitioners, much less any fundamental right has been infringed. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk