Kerala High Court
P.M.Abdul Rasheed vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation on 28 June, 2021
WP(C) NO. 822 OF 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 822 OF 2012
PETITIONER:
P.M.ABDUL RASHEED
AGED 38 YEARS
PROPRIETOR, BADIADKA PETROLEUM AGENCY,HINDUSTAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION DEALER,BADIADKA, P.O.PERDALA,
KASARAGOD - 671551.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
SMT.M.BINDUDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,BHARAT BHAVAN,
4 & 6 CURIMBHOY ROAD,BALLAD ESTATE, MUMBAI - 400
001.
2 THE TERRITORY MANAGER (RETAIL)
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, N-H 17, CALICUT
KANNUR ROAD, VANDIPETTA, CALICUT - 673001.
3 THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD - 671 001.
4 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
COLLECTORATE, KASARAGOD - 671 001.
5 MOOSA B. CHERKALAM
S/O.KUNHAMBU, CHAMBALAM, CHENGALA P.O.,
KASARAGOD - 671541.
R1 & R2 BY SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
R3 & R4 BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 822 OF 2012 2
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 28th day of June, 2021)
The writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for a
direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4
representation, for a direction to the 4th respondent not to issue any
No Objection Certificate sought in Ext.P2 letter for setting up a retail
outlet of petroleum products, for a direction to the respondents 1 to
4 not to take any further steps to start the new petroleum outlet in
Neerchal Village in Kasargod district till a decision is taken on Ext.P4
representation and for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to refrain
from allotting new outlet for petroleum products to the 5 th
respondent.
2. Heard Sri Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel on behalf of
the petitioner, Smt.Deepa Narayanan, learned Senior Government
Pleader on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 and Sri M.Gopikrishnan
Nambiar, learned counsel on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The 5 th
respondent has not entered appearance, even though he has been
served.
3. The petitioner is an existing dealer of Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation and his grievance is that there is an attempt
to grant a new dealership in the same area to the 5 th respondent.
The writ petition was filed in 2012. The petitioner has relied on the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Basheer M.M. and Anr.
v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in [2011 (4) KHC 285]
wherein this Court had directed that the Oil Manufacturing
Companies should constitute a joint committee to consider objection
of existing dealers and that they should identify new locations and
advertise the same only on being satisfied about the need based on
the relevant Government Order and after considering the volume
sales of the existing operators within 5 kms in rural areas.
According to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 2 are proceeding
to open a new outlet after obtaining No Objection Certificate from
the 4th respondent District Magistrate.
4. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that
the judgment referred to in the writ petition was challenged before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had set
aside the judgment in its order dated 02.04.2013 in Civil Appeal
Nos.2793-2797 of 2012. As a matter of fact, a Division Bench of
this Court had occasion to consider the issue in its decision in
Omana P.K. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in
[2020 KHC 3760]. This Court had noticed that the Division Bench
judgment in Basheer's case (supra) has been set aside by the Apex
Court and extracted the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid civil appeals in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the judgment.
The Division Bench also noticed the judgment of a learned Single
Judge who was one of the Judges who constituted the Division
Bench, in Hassan v. Union of India reported in [2013 (2) KHC
775], which was also rendered after considering the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2793-2797 of 2012.
The Division Bench upheld the finding that in view of the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petitions cannot be entertained,
since the petitioners cannot be said to have any locus standi. In the
light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and this Court, which have been set out in detail in the
judgment of this Court in Omana's case (supra), this writ petition
cannot be entertained and the same is dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI,
JUDGE
dsn
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXTS:
EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DEALERSHIP LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF SALES RECORDS OF THE PETITIONER'S RETAIL
OUTLET.
EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DT.21.1.2008 SENT BY THE
TERRITORY MANAGER OF BPC LTD.
EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.4.1.2012.
EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TRUE NATURE AND
LIE OF THE PROPOSED SITE.
