IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3328 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANU THOMAS, PROPRIETOR, M/S.PAULSON FUELS, ARPOOKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., TATAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.GOPINATHA MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No.3328 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a dealer of petroleum products in Kottayam. While so, a retail outlet in Thalayolaparambu was entrusted with the petitioner on a temporary basis as per Ext.P1 order dated 8.9.2006, pursuant to which, the petitioner has been operating the said outlet as well, without any complaint from any corner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said retail outlet at Thalayolaparambu has now been decided to be given on 'regular basis' to some of the prospective persons belonging to the category of SC/ST and that the steps for finalisation, pursuant to the selection, are going on. It is also stated that 'final list' has been prepared by the respondent and that the agency arrangement pursuant to Ext.P1 is likely to be terminated at any time, which if permitted to be proceeded with, will cause irreparable loss and hardships to the petitioner. Petitioner wants a minimum of one year's time to collect the dues from the customers; particularly having given W.P (C) No.3328 of 2010 2 the fuel on credit to several such persons and the realisation of the due amount will take considerable time. It is also stated that the petitioner has filed a representation before the respondent in this regard, which is stated as pending. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent, on instructions, submits that there is absolutely no merit or bona fides in the submissions made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the outlet was given on a 'temporary' arrangement. As per Clause 3 of Ext.P1 order of entrustment, it is clearly stipulated that the arrangement is liable to be terminated by either party giving 15 days' notice to the other, in this behalf. It is further stated in clause 7 of Ext.P1 that the arrangement shall remain in force for a period of 'one year' commencing from September 11, 2006, or till appointment of a regular dealer or till terminated earlier by the Corporation as stated above; subject to the condition that the agreement could be renewed further for a period of one year at the sole discretion of the Corporation. The fact remains that W.P (C) No.3328 of 2010 3 the temporary arrangement made in September 2006 as per Ext.P1 still continues and that the petitioner is operating the petroleum outlet even today. 4. On considering the materials on record, this Court finds that there is absolutely no merit in the contentions raised from the part of the petitioner and that no order can be issued to direct respondent so as to enable the petitioner to run the said outlet till the petitioner realises the entire amount stated as due from the customers in respect of the fuel given on credit. More so, the sale of the petroleum products by way of credit was solely on discretion of the petitioner and absolutely no blame can be put on the shoulders of the respondent in any manner. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is dealing with 'petroleum products' and that some reasonable time is very much necessary to wind up the operation in a safe and secured manner, some breathing time can be given to the petitioner to surrender the premises. W.P (C) No.3328 of 2010 4 5. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is given one month's time to effect vacant surrender of the premises and till such time, no further coercive steps shall be taken by the respondent in this regard. Subject to the above, interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE ma W.P (C) No.3328 of 2010 5 W.P (C) No.3328 of 2010 6