IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 295 of 2002(C) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.12418/1995 .................... PETITIONER: 6TH RESPONDENT ------------------------------- SMT. JAYA, PROPRIETRIX, JAYA GAS SERVICES,ALAMCODE, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & OTHER RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAMATHY SHAJAHAN, CHARUVILA VEEDU, OPPOSITE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, VARKALA-695 141. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF PETORLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 3. OIL SELECTION BOARD, KERALA AND LAKSHADWEEP, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, 5TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B.(OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. 4. MRS SANTHA PANICKER, MEMBER OF OIL SELECTION BOARD, 5TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. 5. SRI. SIVADASAN SINGH, EX.MLA. MEMBER OF OIL SELECTION BOARD, 5TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. 6. HON.JUSTICE MARUTHU MUTHU, CHAIRMAN, OIL SELECTION BOARD, 5TH FLOOR, K.S.H.B. OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-16. 7. AREA MANAGER,INDIAN OIL CORPORATION INDIAME, AREA OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KOCHI-682 020. 8. P.C.CHACKO, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.C.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR R3 & R7 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/08/2008, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.295/2002 & O.P.NOS.9223/1995 & 12418/1995 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== R.P.Nos.295 & 296 of 2002 and O.P.Nos.9223 & 12418 of 1995 ================== Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T The above two review petitions relate to selection of petitioner in the two review petitions (who is the same in both) as a dealer for running a petroleum outlet of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The petitioners in the original petitions lost out to the petitioner in the review petitions. They have filed the writ petitions alleging that the petitioner in the review petitions got herself selected by undue influence exerted through an M.P. To prove the undue influence, the petitioners rely on news paper reports and a letter alleged to be written by a Member of Parliament. Originally taking note of that letter, a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the writ petitions directing cancellation of the selection of the petitioner in the review petitions. Later on, the very same Judge admitted these review petitions and ordered stay of the judgment also. The petitioner in the review petitions would contend that the judgments were pronounced without r.p.295/02 etc. 2 taking note of the fact that the petitioner in the review petitions had already established the outlet and started functioning long before. After hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the review petitions are to be allowed. Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed and original petitions are re-heard. As I have already mentioned the ground on which the award of dealership to the petitioner in the review petitions, who is one of the respondents in the original petitions, is challenged on the ground that she obtained the dealership by exerting undue influence on the members of the Oil Selection Board. The only evidence before this Court to substantiate the same are paper reports and an alleged letter written by a Member of Parliament to the Oil Selection Board. Both the M.P. and the petitioner in the review petitions have disowned the letter. Therefore, without taking evidence on the subject, I cannot now decide as to whether the letter is genuine or not. As far as the paper reports are concerned, I do not think that this Court can act on the basis of paper reports. As such, there is no reliable evidence before me to substantiate the contentions of the petitioners in the original r.p.295/02 etc. 3 petitions. The selection was in 1995, more than 13 years elapsed since then. The petitioner in the review petitions has been running the retail outlet ever since for all these years. I do not think that on the evidence available here, I can now cancel the allotment given to the petitioner in the review petitions. Accordingly, the original petitions are dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge