IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15187 of 2008(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M/S.CHERRY'S, H.P.DEALERS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH, COCHIN - 682 018. REP. BY ITS MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD., 17, JAMSHEDJI, TATA ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 2. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN LTD. ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O. ERNAKULAM - 682 018. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R3 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 15187 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 2nd June, 2008. J U D G M E N T There is a controversy as to whether the petitioner was heard before the impugned order has been passed. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 to the effect that the petitioner's manager appeared before the 2nd respondent on 24-3- 2008 and made his submissions. The manager of the petitioner was directed to put the same in writing. Accordingly, he submitted his explanation in writing on 26-3-2008. It is after considering the said explanation the impugned order is passed, is the contention raised. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not actually heard. But, he had only submitted his explanation and he is entitled to be heard on the explanation. I think that without going into this controversy, the 2nd respondent shall confer an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and decide the issue. Accordingly, the petitioner or his representative would appear in person on 3-6-2008 for a personal hearing. Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the order will be passed within two days. The above consensus is recorded and the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge any fresh order to be passed. Issue photo copy urgently. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.