IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2011 / 8TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 17522 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAVI SANKAR, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.R. KRISHNA PILLAI, CHARUVEETTIL THEKATHIL, THATTAYIL PO, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA 691 525. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER AMM'S OFFICE, IST FLOOR, PETRONET CCK LTD IRUMPANAM 682 309 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE AREA MARKETING MANAGER (KERALA) THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD A AMM'S OFFICE, IST FLOOR, PETRONET CCK LTD IRUMPANAM 682 309 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE SENIOR MANAGER MARKEING (COCHIN) THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD AMM'S OFFICE, IST FLOOR, PETRONET CCK LTD IRUMPANAM 682 309 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SRI K.G KUMARAGURVARAN, KUZHIVELIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PARAKKARA PO, THATTAYIL, ADOOR ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA 691 525. 5. MR VARGHESE, S/O.KOSHY SUJA NILAYAM, MALLIKAMURI THATTAYIL, PANDALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE PATHANAMTHITTA 691 525. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SRI. S.SUJIN FOR BPC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 17522 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED 18.2.05 EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANTHALAM THEKKEKARA VILLAGE EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 5.5.05 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.7.08 PASSED BY R2 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE KERALA STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION FOR FIXING NORMS EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. (True Copy) P.A To Judge P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).17522/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:- (i). To issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to examine the ineligibility suffered by the 4th respondent in that he has entered into a benami transaction with the 5th respondent, the owner of the site, which is offered as a place for running a retail outlet in the reserved Defence category. (ii). To declare that the 4th respondent is wholly ineligible to be granted the Petroleum retail outlet as he has patently breached the stipulations laid down by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited in getting the award of licence to run a retail outlet (iii). To issue a writ of Mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to examine the complaints submitted by the petitioner in regard to the grant of licence of a retail outlet close to his retail outlet in the Adoor - Pathanamthitta road and examine whether the 4th respondent is not ineligible by reason of the ineligibilities pointed out in Ext.P6 representation. W.P.(C).17522/11 2 2. Mr.K.Ramakumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the course of proceedings being pursued by the concerned respondent, particularly in permitting the fifth respondent to have the licence to run the retail outlet close to the retail outlet of the petitioner, is not correct or sustainable. Many a ground, factual and legal, has been raised in the writ petition, in support of the case. The leaned counsel also submits that the matter is covered by the decision rendered by this Court reported in Mary Ulahannan v. Union of India (2011 (2) KHC 792). 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation as well, who submits that the factual position pertaining to the present case stands entirely different. However, in view of the limited nature of the relief now pressed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the petitioner would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondent/Corporation to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a reasonable time, this Court finds that it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. W.P.(C).17522/11 3 4. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders with regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner therein, as expeditiously as possible, after giving an opportunity of hearing, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for compliance. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs