IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13064 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIHAS.M.B,MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.K.R.FUELS, KATTUPUTHUSERRY, PALLICKAL RESIDING AT BASHEER NIVAS, KATTUPUTHUSERRY, PALLICKAL P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM SRI.DIPU.R SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW SRI.K.S.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GASES GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST)MUMBAI-400051. 3. CHIEF DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, KOCHI DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PANMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SHRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.13064 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T M/s.K.R.Fuels, a proprietary concern, was a dealer in petroleum products appointed by the 2nd respondent. That dealership was cancelled. The petitioner has now come with a case that in the petitioner's property where M/s.K.R.Fuels was running the dealership, the 2nd respondent is taking steps to start a new dealership to be run by a new dealer. According to the petitioner, in the petitioner's property, without a proper lease the 2nd respondent cannot start a new agency with a new dealer. 2. The learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submits that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question at all and, in fact he is a stranger. The owner of the property was the father of the former dealer who committed suicide and the petitioner has nothing to do with the property. The petitioner could not controvert this contention. In fact the counsel for the petitioner agrees that he is not the owner of the property. He being not a owner of the property, he cannot w.p.c.13064/08 2 raise any objection regarding starting of the new dealership in that property. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge