IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2009 / 12TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 16362 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. J.PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL JOSEPH, J.P.NILAYAM, VARODA, VAZHICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. J.PRABHASH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.DANIEL JOSEPH, KUMAR BHAVAN, VARODA, VAZHICHAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.KILLIYOOR P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PETROLEUM MINISTRY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN. 3. J.MOHANDAS, HAPPY FUELS, PALLICHAL, VEDIVECHANCOIL.P.O. 4. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SUPPLY CO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO FOR R4 SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 3rd July,2009 J U D G M E N T Third respondent was licensed as a dealer for conducting a petrol pump at Vedivachancoil in Thiruvananthapuram in the SC/ST quota. Petitioners are brothers of the 3rd respondent. It seems that they had advanced substantial amounts to 3rd respondent to enable him to start a petrol pump and also to obtain loan from the State Bank of Travancore. It further seems that the dealership of the 3rd respondent has been suspended by the Oil Company and it has now been entrusted to the 4th respondent. Petitioners approached the Oil Company with a request that since they had advanced money to the 3rd respondent and the amount has not been repaid, they should be permitted to run the petrol pump. This writ petition has been filed in relation to the said request made to the Oil company. W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009 2 2. A statement has been filed on behalf the 2nd respondent pointing out that the 3rd respondent has invoked the arbitration clause against the 2nd respondent oil company, challenging the order of termination of his dealership and arbitration proceedings are pending. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and hence they are unable to countenance the request made by the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned standing counsel for the 4th respondent. 4. As pointed out by the 2nd respondent, there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and 2nd respondent. If the petitioners have a grievance against their brother to whom they have allegedly advanced money and also stood surety for availing loan from a bank, it is up to them to take steps against the 3rd respondent. This obviously can be done only before a Civil Court. Second respondent cannot be compelled to let the petitioners participate in the running of the petrol pump merely W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009 3 because the petitioners claim to have advanced money to the 3rd respondent. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the writ petition. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take appropriate steps in relation to 3rd respondent, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.16362 of 2009 5