IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 32077 of 2007(R) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ANEESH BAVA, KIZHAKKE OTTOM HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, VAZHAPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER. 2. SRI.MANOJ KUMAR, CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR P.O., COCHIN-682 036. 3. THE SENIOR TERMINAL MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., COCHIN MARKETING TERMINAL, IRUMPANAM, KOCHI-682 309. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.ANIL D. NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 32077 of 2007(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF MODEL TRANSPORT AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF 1ST PETITIONER CO. EXT.P2: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 20.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF MARKER TEST REPORT DTD. 20.9.2007 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DTD. 24.9.2007 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITH RESPECT TO EXT.P2 NOTICE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA STATE TANK LORRY WORKER'S UNION BEFORE THE SENIOR TERMINAL MANAGER, IOC, IRUMPANAM. EXT.P6: COPY OF SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DTD 9.10.2007 ISSUED BY R1 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE EXPLANATION TO EXT.P6 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF TRANSPORT DISCIPLINE GUIDELINE WITH RESPECT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR TRANSPORTING PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE PERFORMA OF THE BULK PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ROAD TRANSPORT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED NIL. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE TEST REPORT OF THE SAMPLES DRAWN FROM THE PETITIONER'S TRUCK CONDUCTED ON 15.9.2007. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF CONSIGNMENTS TRANSPORTED BY THE PETITIONER'S TRUCK AFTER ENTERING INTO THE PRESENT AGREEMETN WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTION COMMITTEE CONSISTING OF OFFICIALS OF THER RESPONDENT CORPORATION DATED 3.10.2007. EXT.R2(f): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.10.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.32077 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition relates to confiscation of a tanker lorry containing petroleum products and proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondents on the allegation that the petroleum products contained in the lorry were adulterated. Pursuant to my interim order dated 2.11.2007, the petroleum product has been unloaded at the respondents’ installation and the lorry has been released on certain conditions pending further proceedings. Now what remains is conclusion of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner’s contention is that he would not get justice if the hearing is conducted by the 2nd respondent in view of the certain personal allegations made by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the respondents stoutly refutes all those allegations. 2. I directed the standing counsel for the respondents to ascertain as to whether it would be possible for them to get the hearing conducted by another higher officer without any stigma W.P.(c) No.32077/07 2 on the 2nd respondent. Although they stoutly deny the allegations raised by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent, the respondents are now willing to get the hearing done by the Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales) of the 1st respondent, who is an officer higher in rank to the 2nd respondent. 3. In the above circumstances the writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to see that the hearing in respect of the proceedings in question is conducted by the Deputy General Manager (Retail Sales) of the 1st respondent instead of the 2nd respondent. I make it clear that I have not accepted any of the allegations raised by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent in the matter and purely as a matter of conciliation I have directed another higher officer to conduct the hearing. The security furnished pursuant to interim order shall be dealt with in accordance with the orders to be passed in the proceedings pending against the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c) No.32077/07 3