IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2011 / 10TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 13257 of 2011(F) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VASUDEVAN, S/O.NANU, AGED 65 YEARS, SEEMALAYAM, THIRUVONAM, TKM COLLEGE P.O., KOLLAM; FROM KALLAYATH, KILIKOLLUR, KALLUMTHAZHAM PO, KOLLAM-691004. BY ADV. SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LID., 3079/3, J B TITO MARG, SADIQ NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110049, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RETAILS SALES MANAGER, PREMIER PARK, INCHEKAL BYE-PASS ROAD, VALLAKKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 008. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SC.FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13257 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1: THE COPY OF ALLOTMENT LETTER DTD 14.9.05 EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION LETTER DTD 29.03.2011. EXT.P2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ENVELOPE. EXT.P3: THE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 18.7.09 TO RESPONDENTS. EXT.P4: THE LIST OF THE LITIGATIONS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) NO.13257 OF 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings of the respondents cancelling and withdrawing a letter of intent dated 14.9.2005 issued in his favour. The letter of intent had been issued to the petitioner for starting a retail outlet of petroleum products at Chakkuvally, Kollam district under the category alloted for members of scheduled castes. According to the petitioner, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation had invited applications for another dealership under the same category in Upla, Manjeshwar. Though the petitioner had been selected and issued with a letter of intent on 20.10.2004, the retail outlet was abandoned by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation because of a proposal to construct a Super Highway. It is the case of the petitioner that he had W.P(C) NO.13257 OF 2011 2 been waiting for more than 8 years in the hope that he would be able to start and conduct the retail outlet and had to fight various litigations in different courts as the holder of a letter of intent of the proposed petrol pump. He also had to incur substantial amounts by way of expenditure. Therefore, he has sought for the issue of appropriate writs and orders quashing Ext.P2 and also a declaration that he is eligible to continue to enjoy the benefits of the appointment as per Ext.P1. 2. The writ petition is contested by the respondents who have filed their counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the petitioner had submitted a false affidavit in support of his application for the grant of a retail outlet. The false information furnished by the petitioner was of a very serious nature making him ineligible to continue as a dealer under the respondents. Therefore, action was initiated against him and as per W.P(C) NO.13257 OF 2011 3 Ext.P2, the letter of intent issued was withdrawn. According to the respondents, the action initiated against the petitioner was perfectly justified and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 3. Though a counter affidavit is seen to have been filed on 17.6.2011, no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner refuting any of the contentions in the counter affidavit. 4. I have heard the counsel for the contesting parties. 5. The respondents have produced Ext.R1(b), copy of the affidavit that has been filed by the petitioner in support of his application for the grant of letter of intent as a petroleum retail dealer. In paragraph 2 of his affidavit, the petitioner has specifically stated that he does not hold a letter of intent issued by any other petroleum company. It has been further stated in the W.P(C) NO.13257 OF 2011 4 affidavit that, in the event of it being found that any of the statements made by him in his affidavit were untrue, the respondent would have been the authority to unconditionally withdraw the letter of intent if any, that is issued to him acting on the basis of the said affidavit. The counsel for the respondents has also drawn my attention to Ext.R1(d) copy of a letter dated 31.5.2010 issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. informing them that the petitioner had been issued with a letter of intent by the said company on 20.10.2004. Therefore, as on 22.12.2004, the date of Ext.R1(b) affidavit, the petitioner was holding a letter of intent issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. to him. It is therefore clear that the statement made by the petitioner in Ext.R1(b) affidavit to the effect that he was not holding a letter of intent of any other petroleum company was palpably false. On detecting the above W.P(C) NO.13257 OF 2011 5 serious infirmity, the letter of intent issued by the respondents to the petitioner has been cancelled as per Ext.P2. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents, withdrawing the letter of intent issued to the petitioner is perfectly justified in the circumstances detailed above. I do not find any grounds to grant any of the releifs prayed for in the writ petition. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. mns