Kerala High Court
Sebastian Mathew vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 23 July, 2025
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2025:KER:55039
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 19779 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SEBASTIAN MATHEW
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.K.K.MATHEW, KAILATH HOUSE,
KAILATHPADY, THRIKODITHANAM,
CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM - 686 105.
BY ADVS.
SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
SHRI.ABHIRAM T.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD
PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 036,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (RETAIL SALES)
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
PANAMPILLY AVENUE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 036.
2025:KER:55039
W.P.(C) No.19779/2022
:2:
3 SALES OFFICER
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, MARKETING DIVISION,
TRIVANDRUM DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR,
PREMIER PARK, INCHAKAL BYE PASS ROAD,
VALIAKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 008.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM
SHRI.RAJA KANNAN
SMT.KRIPA C. NAIR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.06.2025, THE COURT ON 23.07.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:55039
W.P.(C) No.19779/2022
:3:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.19779 of 2022
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2025
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~ The petitioner, who is operating a B-site Petroleum Retail Outlet of the 1st respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited, seeks to direct the respondents to forthwith disburse the balance subsidy amount of ₹7,57,658/- to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner states that as part of modernisation of the Petroleum Retail Outlets of IOCL, the petitioner was directed to renovate the canopy and other related structures in his petroleum outlet. The 1st respondent assured that a portion of the total expense incurred for the proposed modernisation work would be reimbursed as subsidy to the 2025:KER:55039 W.P.(C) No.19779/2022 :4: petitioner.
3. The petitioner invited quotation and Nandini Fabricators, who quoted a sum of ₹25,37,763.46, was the selected bidder. Ext.P1 quotation was approved by the 1st respondent-Company which granted administrative approval as per Ext.P2. In Ext.P2, a sum of ₹15,22,658/- was sanctioned as subsidy for the proposed renovation.
4. The petitioner executed the work. The petitioner remitted the entire sum of ₹25,37,763.46 payable to the contractor. The 2nd respondent thereafter released an amount of ₹7,57,658/- as subsidy to the petitioner. The balance amount was not paid. The petitioner submitted representations seeking release of the balance subsidy amount. There was no response. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 to 3 to release the balance subsidy amount of ₹7,57,658/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till the date of realisation.
2025:KER:55039 W.P.(C) No.19779/2022 :5:
5. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that the approval for the subsidy amount of ₹15,22,658/- was given erroneously and inadvertently. In line with the policy, the petitioner was paid an amount of ₹7,65,000/- as subsidy on 15.02.2022. When the petitioner insisted for payment of further amount towards subsidy, he was asked to meet the Divisional Retail Sales Head. When the petitioner met the Divisional Head, the matter was explained to the satisfaction of the petitioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
7. The renovation work of the Petroleum Retail Outlet was initiated by the petitioner at the instance of the 1st respondent-Company. The petitioner was directed to obtain quotations. Nandhini Fabricators submitted Ext.P1 quotation for ₹25,37,763.46. The quotation was forwarded to the 2025:KER:55039 W.P.(C) No.19779/2022 :6: respondents 1 and 2. The quotation was approved by the 1st respondent. Ext.P2 is the administrative approval. Ext.P2 administrative approval unequivocally stated that ₹15,22,658/- is the eligible amount of subsidy.
8. Placing reliance on Ext.P3, the petitioner has made the constructions. The petitioner spent the entire expenditure from his own fund and demanded payment of subsidy. The respondents paid only ₹7,57,658/- which is 50% of the subsidy sanctioned as per Ext.P2. Now, the respondents contend that approval under Clause 3 of Ext.R1(a) policy was granted inadvertently under Clause 4. As per Clause 3.5, the maximum subsidy is ₹7,65,000/- or 60% of actuals whichever is lower. Administrative approval granted under Clause 4 is an error.
9. The respondents may be correct in stating that the petitioner was not entitled to ₹15,22,658/- towards subsidy. But, the petitioner has started the work based on the administrative approval given by the respondents as per 2025:KER:55039 W.P.(C) No.19779/2022 :7: Ext.P2 whereunder the petitioner was shown as eligible for ₹15,22,658/-. After completion of the work, when the petitioner demanded the balance agreed subsidy amount, the respondents will not be justified in going back from their promise. The respondents will be estopped from going back after making a positive representation.
The writ petition is therefore allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the balance subsidy amount admissible under Ext.P2 administrative approval with 6% interest from 15.02.2022 till the date of actual payment.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE aks/21.07.2025 2025:KER:55039 W.P.(C) No.19779/2022 :8: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19779/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE QUOTATION DATED 01/11/2020 SUBMITTED BY NANDINI FABRICATORS.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT COMPANY.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX INVOICE ISSUED BY
THE WORK CONTRACTORS - NANDINI
FABRICATORS.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT
STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE STRUCTURAL STABILITY
CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
FIRST RESPONDENT COMPANY TO THE
PETITIONER INTIMATING THE PART PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY DATED 15/02/2022.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOTS IN RESPECT OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE WEB PORTAL OF INDIAN OIL COMPANY.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/03/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS Exhibit R1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POLICY CIRCULAR NO.246-11/2016 DATED 11.11.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT