Shanifa Aliyarukunju vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 10127 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7774 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER:

               SHANIFA ALIYARUKUNJU
               AGED 33 YEARS
               W/O. SHAJAHAN, PUTHUVEL PUTHENVEEDU HOUSE, VEILOOR
               VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, MURIKKUMPUZHA P.O.
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 302.

               BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,
               KERALA STATE OFFICE, PANAMPILLY AVENUE,
               PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
               GENERAL MANAGER (LPG SALE), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682
               036.

      2        ASWATHY SURENDRAN,
               AGED 29 YEARS
               W/O. SIBI, ASWATHY BHAVAN, ARUKIL, PALLIKKAL,
               KUTTICHAL P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
               PIN:695 574.



               SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR,SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7774 OF 2021(V)

                                       2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 show cause

notice issued on 03.02.2021 by which the 1st

respondent has informed the petitioner and the

partner - the 2nd respondent, about the proposed

cancellation of the distributorship. In this show

cause notice, it is already stated that the

decision is being taken on the basis of the

reconcilable dispute between the two partners,

cancellation of D&O license on the request of the

major partner, freezing of bank account etc., and

that the distributorship has been remaining under

suspension from 23.09.2020 onwards. By Ext.P4

notice, the petitioner has been called upon to

furnish her explanation against the proposal for

termination of distributorship agreement for

reasons stated therein.

2. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that the explanation is WP(C).No.7774 OF 2021(V)

already furnished and the same is not seen

produced along with the writ petition.

3. At any rate, there can not be any

apprehension that the 1st respondent would take an

action without considering the explanation, if

any, submitted. In case orders are not passed,

the 1st respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P4

notice after affording an opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA JUDGE DM WP(C).No.7774 OF 2021(V)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 26/02/2019 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.11.2020 IN WPC NO. 18583/2020 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17.02.201 SENT BY PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE