Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE5H DAY OF NOVEMBER201314TH KARTHIKA, 1935 WP(C).No. 24785 of 2013 (W) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------
1. SALISHKUMAR, S/O KUMARAN, IRUMPARANALLOOR,33 YEARS, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR- 680 545 (DURGE FUELS)
2. MOHAN.G., CHRUPLASSERY, (SREE SASTHA FUELS) PALAKKAD,PIN- 679 503
3. RAPHEL, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN AGENCIES, CHEMMANOOR,THRISSUR -680 545
4. RUGMINI, W/O RAMDAS, (ANIDYA PETRO CAFE), KUNNAPPALLY, PERAMANGALAM.P.O.,PIN- 680 545
5. SHIMI.S., D/O SUNDARRAJ, RAGHUVILAS, KIZHAKEKKARA, KOTTARAKKEL, (RADISONS FUELS) -691 506 BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------
1. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATION), INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPALLY AVENUE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI -682 036
2. THE OPERATION MANAGER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPALLY AVENUE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI -682 036
3. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR OF MARKETING, G-9, ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA, MUMBAI- 40005 R1 TO R3BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,SC SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0511-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C).No. 24785 of 2013 (W) ------------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER FOR ROAD TRANSPORTATION OF BULK PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE PERIOD20102013 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE TENDER FOR ROAD TRANSPORTATION OF THE BULK PETROLEUM PRODUCTS ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT COMPANY FOR THE PERIOD20132016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUEGMENT DATED0504-2013 IN WPC NO. 7306/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No. 24785 OF2013......................................................................... Dated this the 5th November, 2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court mainly aggrieved of Clause (11)(d) of Ext.P2 tender conditions, whereby maximum number of consortium which could be formed with other Retail Outlet Dealers has been restricted to 'two', which according to the petitioners has adversely affected their rights and liberties; more so when the trucks have been purchased arranging finance from other sources, on the basis of the support given by the Company to have such arrangement as put forth in Ground 'C' of the writ petition.
2. Mr. N.N. Sugunapalan, the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P(C)No.7306 of 2013, which was disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment dated 05.04.2013, recording the submission made from the part of the petitioners that their tenders had already been accepted by the Corporation and granting permission to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice to the rights and liberties to approach this Court, if any further cause of action arose.
3. The present grievance of the petitioners is with regard to W.P.(C)No. 24785 OF20132 the adverse consequences resulted because of Clause 11(d) of Ext.P2 tender conditions as mentioned already. It is stated that there was no such clause imposing any restriction in respect of the earlier tender, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P1 . It is by virtue of support extended from the part of the respondents that the vehicles were purchased by the petitioners availing loans from different corners and they have been put to use , which virtually was found very much feasible for the respondents as well, who could easily exercise direct and indirect control over the vehicles and transport, the petitioners being the RO. dealers, unlike other transporters.
4. The respondents have filed a statement pointing out the circumstances which led to incorporation of the disputed clause in Ext. P2 tender conditions. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents points out that, earlier, the RO dealers were not permitted to participate in the tender and that the said 'special concession' was extended only from the year 2010. The learned Standing Counsel also points out that, in the case of dealers, there is no stipulation with regard to minimum number W.P.(C)No. 24785 OF20133 of vehicles owned and possessed by them; the security deposit in their case is very low and further that the dealers have been given 'first priority'' as pointed out in paragraph 3 of the Statement. Subsequently, it was found that the dealers, making use of such concession, were virtually entering into transportation business, which was not the intention of such concession and that the same was being mis-utilised, hence the necessity to have incorporated such conditions to safeguard the rights and interests of the respondents and all others concerned. The learned Counsel also points out that the petitioners, who are RO dealers are not supposed to dictate terms to the respondents with regard to the tender conditions and that there is no merit or bonafides in the writ petition.
5. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court because of the particular facts and circumstances, under which they were persuaded to purchase the vehicles and to put to use for transporting the materials from the respondent Company; and that after availing such opportunity, if the operation of the said W.P.(C)No. 24785 OF20134 vehicles is caused to be stalled on a fine morning, the financial base of the petitioners will be in doldrums and the vehicles may be seized by the financiers for probable default in repayment of the due amount. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners seeks for permission to approach the competent authority of the respondent Corporation by filing a representation projecting their grievances, as specifically pleaded in Ground 'C' and elsewhere.
6. In the said circumstances, the petitioners are set at liberty to move the competent authority of respondent Company by filing a detailed representation as above, upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition stands disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk