IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2009 / 6TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 13479 of 2007(D) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- ROSHNI SATHEES, AGED 45 YEARS, WIFE OF SATHEES CHANDRAN, VISHNU RAM, OPPOSITE PANCHAYAT ROAD, VETTU ROAD, SAINIK SCHOOL P.O., KAZHAKOOTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.H.B.SHENOY MR.B.ASHOK SHENOY SMT.LAKSHMI B.SHENOY MR.ABU MATHEW MR.SOBHAN GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. 2. THE CHIEF LPG MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036 3. THE SENIOR AREA MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. MR.A.M. SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.E.K.NANDAKUMAR, MR.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 13479/2007-D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.KESO/LOA/308 DATED 30/03/2000 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE INDANE (LIQUIFIED PETROLEUM GAS) DISTRIBUTORSHIP (DOMESTIC & COMMERCIAL) AGREEMENT DATED 31/07/2000 EXECUTED BY PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF 1ST RESPONDENT CORPORATION. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CAO/196 DATED 07/04/2004 SENT BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/05/2004 SENT BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/07/2005 IN WP(C) NO. 19021 OF 2005 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.CAO/196 DATED 07/09/2005 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12/09/2005 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE MINUTES OF DISCUSSIONS OF MEETING HELD BETWEEN PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS, NO.KESO/LPG/308 DATED 27/10/2005. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/01/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/03/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/05/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.KESO/LPG/308 DATED 10/10/2006 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 09/11/2006 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KESO/LPG/308 DATED 15/02/2007 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 13479 of 2007 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 28th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in cancelling the distributorship of liquefied petroleum gas granted to the petitioner, on allegations of violation of conditions of such grant. Ext. P12 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner detailing the specific acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner and directing the petitioner to explain why the petitioner's dealership should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted Ext. P13 reply dealing with each and every allegation in Ext. P12. Pursuant thereto, Ext. P14 order has been passed cancelling the dealership. Ext. P14 is under challenge before me. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed justifying Ext. P14 order. According to them, the petitioner has violated the rules regarding grant of distributorship as also the specific clauses in the agreement executed by the petitioner with the respondents. 3. I have heard both parties. 4. On a perusal of Ext. P14, I am not satisfied that the author of Ext. P14 has applied his mind to the issues. In any event, it does not appear so from Ext. P14. The specific allegations contained in Ext. P12 have been dealt with in Ext. P13 reply filed by the petitioner. In Ext. P14, after extracting the various clauses in the agreement, the author of the order has simply again narrated the misconducts and in the end concluded that the petitioner has violated the conditions in the agreement. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever in Ext. P14 as to why the explanation given by the petitioner for each charge is not acceptable. That is not what is expected in cases like this, which would affect the livelihood of the petitioner. As such, I am satisfied that there is complete lack of application of mind, while passing Ext. P14 order. It is not a reasoned order also. W.P.C. No. 13479/2007. -: 2 :- In the above circumstances, Ext. P14 is quashed and the 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. While passing fresh orders, the 1st respondent shall consider each explanation of the petitioner in Ext. P13 and enter a finding as to why that explanation cannot be accepted in law. Fresh orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/