1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 17.07.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Rev.Aplc(MD) No.8 of 2011 in W.A(MD)No.472 of 2009 The Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road, Chinna Chokkikulam, Madurai – 2. .. Petitioner/2nd Respondent Vs. 1.M.Mariyappan .. 1st Respondent/Appellant 2.The Manager, Standard Appliances, Indian Distributor, 249 – K, Aruppukottai Road, Madurai – 625 002. .. 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent Prayer:- Review Application filed under Order 47, Rule 1 and 2 r/w 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the Judgment dated 07.10.2009 passed in W.A(MD)No.472 of 2009 on the file of this Court. Prayer in WA(MD). 472/ 2009 : Writ Appeal filed Under Clause 15 of the letter of patent against the order dated 11.11.2008 passed in WP(MD).No.2259/08, on the file of this Court. Prayer in WP(MD). 2259/ 2008 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to instruct the 1st respondent to release the petitioner's gas connection no. 6148 on the strength of the petitioner's representation letter dated 05/03/2008 to the respondents. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Muraleedharan For R – 1 : Mr.E.Somasundaram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.DURAISWAMY,J.) The Indian Oil Corporation has filed the above Review Application to review the Judgment passed in W.A(MD)No.472 of 2009. 2.The first respondent filed the Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.2259 of 2008 to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to instruct the first respondent to release the petitioner's gas connection No.6148 on the strength of the petitioner's representation letter dated 05.03.2008 to the respondents. 3.The learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition by giving liberty to the writ petitioner to surrender his own L.P.G connection and get one additional cylinder in favour of his wife's L.P.G connection or vice versa and to that effect gave liberty to the writ petitioner to file necessary application before the second respondent. 4.Challenging this order, the writ petitioner filed a Writ Appeal in W.A(MD)No.472 of 2009 and this Court by its Judgment dated 07.10.2009 set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and allowed the Writ Petition. While allowing the Writ Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court held that in the absence of any specific provision of law pointed out by the Indian Oil Corporation as governing the field, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the Writ Petition was allowed. As against the Judgment passed in the Writ Appeal, the Indian Oil Corporation filed an appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No.31540 of 2009 and the Apex Court by order dated 07.12.2009 dismissed the SLP as withdrawn and granted liberty to the Corporation to file a review petition. Pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court, the Indian Oil Corporation has filed the review application. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that the amended provisions of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Amendment Order, 2009, the word “person” was substituted for the word “household”. As per the amended provisions Rule 1(1)(i)(gg) “household” means a family consisting of husband, wife, unmarried children and dependent parents living together in a dwelling unit having common kitchen. 6.Admittedly, the provisions of the amended Act was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of the Writ Appeal. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the review applicant submitted that instead of going into the correctness of the order passed in the Writ Appeal, it would be suffice to observe that the amended provision, dated 10.09.2009 shall be effective from the date of the said amendment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 8.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/writ petitioner has no objection for observing so. 9.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, we do not find any error apparent on the face of records warranting interference under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, however, we clarify that the provisions of the amendment dated 10.09.2009 shall be effective from the date of the amendment. 10.With this observation, the Review Application is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-I) To +1cc to Mr.K.Muraleedharan, Advocate in SR.No. 73769 Rev.Aplc(MD) No.8 of 2011 in W.A(MD)No.472 of 2009 17.07.2018 ps JM/SKN RSK/SAR 1/27.07.2018/3P/2C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/