AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
The petitioner was an LPG distributor of the 1st respondent- Company. Ext.P1 is the letter of intent dated 3.11.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that, since the petitioner is a scheduled tribe, the entire expenses for the establishment of the unit is to be met by the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent directed the petitioner to invest the entire money and hence it is stated that the petitioner invested money from the terminal benefits of his father, who is a retired Colonel of Indian Army. It is submitted that the petitioner joined at Christian Medical College, Vellore (for short 'CMC, Vellore') for doing his MD course. It is the case of the petitioner that he was managing the affairs of the business personally and through his Manager, who is none other than his father. According to the petitioner, the business was going on smoothly and even the petitioner obtained the best dealership award in Kollam District. Meanwhile, a complaint was filed by one Manoj K.K. as evident by Ext.P2 and the same was on 4.11.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that since no action was taken on Ext.P2 complaint, the petitioner proceeded based on Ext.P1 and invested huge amount. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner joined for the MD course with the full knowledge of the 2nd respondent. It is further stated that after about 10 years, the unit was closed on 29.6.2019 all on a sudden. It is the case of the petitioner that even the show cause notice issued for the alleged violation are received by the petitioner only on 1.7.2019. Therefore, it is alleged that there is violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition is filed with following prayers :
“(i) to issue a Writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order direction quashing Ext. P17 order No. TVM.LPG.JAIHIND.TER dated 29-06-2019 issued by the 2nd respondent as it is arbitrary, illegal and void;
(ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and take appropriate decision on Exts. P10 and P11 applications in accordance with law as directed by this Hon'ble Court in Ext. P12 judgment;
(iii) to declare that petitioner is entitled to carry on the business of distributorship as granted to the petitioner by Ext.P1 letter of induction and subject to the conditions incorporated in Ext. P4;
(iv) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]
Heard Senior Counsel, Dr.K.P.Satheesan, as instructed by Adv.P.Mohandas. I also heard the Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
The Senior Counsel submitted that Ext.P1 letter of intent was dated 3.11.2008 and Ext.P2, the alleged complaint was submitted by one Manoj K.K. on 4.11.2008. No action was taken on Ext.P2 for a long period. Thereafter, Ext.P5 was issued on 30.6.2010. Ext.P6 reply was submitted to Ext.P5. Thereafter, again Ext.P7 notice was sent on 21.10.2010 for which also Ext.P8 reply was submitted. The learned Senior Counsel conceded that even though as per Ext.P9 the Kerala State Commission for Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes interfered in the matter and directed the respondents to allow the father of the petitioner to continue as power of attorney, the same was set aside by this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, by Ext.P10 the petitioner submitted a request to the 2nd respondent to induct his father to carry on the business of the retail outlet. No orders are passed in Ext.P10. It is also the case of the Senior Counsel that Ext.P13 show cause notice dated 22.06.2019 was received by the petitioner only on 01.07.2019 as evident by Ext.P14 postal records. Similarly, Ext.P15 was also received only on 01.07.2019 as evident by Ext.P16 postal records. But Ext.P17 order was passed on 29.06.2019 even without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Hence, it is contended that Ext.P17 order is unsustainable and is to be reconsidered. The counsel also submitted that Ext.P10 is not properly considered by the respondents.
On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner filed OS No.1046 of 2019 before the Munsiff’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram as evident by Ext.R1(a) plaint. The Standing Counsel submitted that the prayers in Ext.R1(a) suit and the prayers in this writ petition are one and the same. The counsel submitted that, subsequently the petitioner withdrew the suit and thereafter prosecuting this writ petition. The counsel submitted that in such situation, this writ petition is not maintainable because, the petitioner has not obtained any liberty from the Munsiff Court before withdrawing the suit to pursue other remedies. The counsel also submitted that Ext.P17 is not a consequential order based on Exts.P13 and P15 and hence even if Ext.P13 and P15 are received by the petitioner subsequent to the date of Ext.P17, there is no consequence. The Standing Counsel takes me through clause 7 of Ext.R1(c), which is the brochure. The counsel submitted that admittedly the petitioner is employed at Vellore CMC Hospital as evident by the counter affidavit filed by the CMC Hospital, Vellore in WP(C) No.7629 of 2016. The counsel takes me through paragraph 6 of Ext.P12 judgment in which the counter affidavit filed by the CMC Vellore is extracted and in the counter it is stated that as per the records of the CMC Vellore, the petitioner was employed in the Gynecologic Oncology Department as an Associate Professor. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that the petitioner was functioning as Registrar (Non PG) from 27.03.2003 to 28.02.2005, Registrar (DGO Trainee) from 11.03.2005 to 10.03.2007, Registrar (Non PG) from 29.03.2007 to 26.04.2007, Tutor (Diploma) from 27.04.2007 to 28.02.2009, P.G. Registrar (MD Trainee) from 02.03.2009 to 01.03.2011, P.G. Tutor from 02.03.2011 to 18.11.2011, Assistant Professor Gr.II from 19.11.2011 to 18.11.2014 and Assistant Professor Gr.I from 19.11.2014 to the date of filing the affidavit. The counsel submitted that in the light of clause 7 of Ext.R1(c) the petitioner is not entitled to continue the dealership and for that simple reason the writ petition is to be dismissed. The counsel also submitted that Ext.P10 is referred in Ext.P17 and the same is also rejected.
This court considered the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents. Admittedly, as per Ext.P1 letter of intend, the Distributorship was given to the petitioner on 03.11.2008. Clause (7) of Ext.R1(c) is important and the same is extracted hereunder:
“7. PERSONAL SUPERVISION BY DISTRIBUTORS (FOR ALL CATEGORIES):
A person selected for the distributorship shall be paying full attention towards day to day working of the distributorship by personally managing the affairs of the distributorship. He/she will not be eligible for taking up any other employment. If the selected person is already employed, he/she will have to resign from the employment before issuance of Letter of Appointment.”
In the light of the affidavit filed by the CMC Vellore in WP(C) No.7629 of 2016, which is clear from paragraph 6 of Ext.P12 judgment, the petitioner is not eligible to continue with the dealership because the petitioner was employed there and that also without the permission of the respondents when the dealership was in his name. Regarding the engagement of the petitioner at CMC vellore, there is no serious dispute. The petitioner only contended that he was studying in the college at Vellore. But the stand of CMC Vellore in WP(c) No.7629 of 2009 can not be ignored. In addition to that, no contra evidence is adduced by the petitioner to disprove the same. Hence the finding in Ext P17 in this regard is justified. Moreover, I perused Ext.P17 order passed by the authority concerned. All the contentions of the petitioner are considered by the officer concerned in detail and thereafter passed Ext.P17 order. As far as the grievance of the petitioner that Ext.P10 is not considered by the respondents is also not correct. Reference No.12 in Ext.P17 is Ext.P10 letter. The same was discussed in paragraph 19 of Ext.P17. Therefore, I think there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P17.
Regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice based on the date in Exts.P13 and P15, which according to the petitioner was received only on 01.07.2019, the respondents submitted that Ext.P17 order is not based on Ext.P13 and P15. Moreover, Exts.P13 and P15 are not referred in Ext.P17 order also. In such circumstances, I think there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P17 order.
Therefore, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.