IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35912 of 2009(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SAJUNATH K.S., AGED 39, S/O.SOMANATH, KALATHILPARAMBIL, CHENGALAYI P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. BY SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, BY ADV. SRI.ADEEP ANWAR, SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (L.P.G.) INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-36. R1 BY SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, 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 29/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.35912/2009 H APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE INVITATION LETTER DTD. 24/11/2008 OF THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER OF INTENT DTD. 26/02/2009 ISSUED BY THE INDIAN CORPORATION. P3: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 26/05/2009 ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO CORPORATION. P4: COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO LETTER OF INTENT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE DETAILED PLAN PREPARED FOR PROPOSED LPG GODOWN OF THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE BROCHURE FOR THE SELECTION FROM JANUARY, 2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF SUCH EXPLANATION DTD. 28/07/2009 OF DEEPAM INDANE SERVICE. P8: COPY OF THE ACCEPTANCE LETTER BY THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. DTD. 4/08/2009. P9: COPY OF THE CMP NO.5874/2009 FILED BY MR. SUBUNATH BEFORE MAGISTRATE COURT, TALIPARAMBU. P10: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT (FRAUDULENT) AND THE F.I.R.147 OF SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE. P11: COPY OF THE SO CALLED FORGED DEED OF PARTNERSHIP DTD. 4/05/2007. P12: COPY OF THE OBTAINED COPY FROM A REGISTRAR OF FIRMS DTD. 25/06/2009. P13: COPY OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF LOI NOTICE DTD. 2/12/2009 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010 JUDGMENT Pursuant to a notification issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the petitioner, a scheduled caste candidate, applied for LPG distributorship. The petitioner was selected and appointed as LPG Distributor at Kelakom in Kannur District. Thereupon Ext.P2 letter of intent was also issued on 26.2.2009. Later on the ground that the petitioner had suppressed the fact that his wife is a partner of a firm which is an LPG Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the letter of intent was withdrawn by Ext.P13 letter dated 2.12.2009 and the petitioner was declared ineligible for award of distributorship. Ext.P13 is under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Though a large number of contentions are raised in this writ petition, when the writ petition came up for final hearing today, Sri.K.P.Dandapani, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that before Ext.P13 was issued and the letter of intent was withdrawn the petitioner was not put to notice W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009 -:2:- or given an opportunity to explain the allegation that his wife is a partner of a firm “Deepam Indane Services” at Sreekantapuram in Kannur district. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the petitioner has filed a criminal complaint evidenced by Ext.P9 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Taliparamba alleging that the partners of the said firm have falsely created a partnership deed showing his wife also as a partner, that the said complaint was referred to the Police for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the Police have registered a crime and that the case is being investigated. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that the circumstances under which the partnership deed, which is relied on in Ext.P13, came to be executed have been adequately explained in Ext.P9 complaint and that if the third respondent, who issued Ext.P13, had given the petitioner an opportunity of being heard or put him on notice, the petitioner should have explained the circumstances under which the said partnership deed came to be in existence. The learned Senior Advocate submitted relying on Ext.P8 that as a matter of fact it was on the advice of the Senior Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation that Ext.P9 complaint was filed. The learned Senior Advocate submitted that in such circumstances it is W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009 -:3:- only just and proper that the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to meet the allegations in Ext.P13. 3. Sri.E.K.Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that it was because the petitioner had suppressed the fact that his wife is a partner of a firm which is an LPG Distributor of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., that the letter of intent was withdrawn and that such withdrawal of the letter of intent was under clause 17 of the application form wherein the petitioner had declared that he has not concealed any material fact. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that it is not the practice of the Indian Oil Corporation to issue notice and hear the applicant before a letter of intent is cancelled. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel on either side. It is evident from Ext.P8 letter issued by the Senior Area Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited that the said officer had advised the petitioner to file a complaint against the individual who had allegedly forged and fabricated the partnership deed and submit a copy of the FIR for the records of the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner accordingly filed Ext.P9 complaint before the Judicial First Class W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009 -:4:- Magistrate, Taliparamba, which was referred to the Police for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ext.P10 FIR was thereupon registered alleging various offences under the Indian Penal Code against Sri.Benny Augustine, son of Augustine and Smt.Celine, W/o.Benny Augustine. The petitioner has in Ext.P9 complaint also referred to the fact that there were no transactions between the petitioner and the accused in the said crime. He has also given an explanation as to why such a partnership deed was brought about. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the third respondent ought to have put the petitioner on notice about the proposal to cancel the letter of intent and afforded him an opportunity to state his case. That having admittedly not being done I am of the opinion that the second respondent should reconsider the matter. I accordingly allow the writ petition, quash Ext.P13 and direct that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation before the third respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the said officer shall, if he is the competent authority, consider the same and pass an appropriate order thereon in accordance with law. If W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009 -:5:- the third respondent is of the opinion that he is not the competent authority to take a decision in the matter he shall forward the representation to the competent authority within one week from the date of receipt of such representation and the competent authority shall take a decision thereon in accordance with law. A final decision in the matter shall be taken expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the third respondent or the competent authority receives the representation. Needless to say, the competent authority shall also afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in person before a decision is taken in the matter. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.35912 of 2009 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th November, 2010