Kerala High Court
Seena K.J vs Union Of India, Represented By The ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 6486 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SEENA K.J., AGED 36 YEARS, W/O. LATE PAUL
JEEVAN JOB, NEYYAN HOUSE, CR IYYUNNI ROAD,
MYLIPADAM, THRISSUR CITY P.O, PIN - 680020
2 JAROM JOB JEEVAN, AGED 1 YEARS, S/O. LATE
PAUL JEEVAN JOB, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND
THE 1ST PETITIONER, SEENA K.J., NEYYAN HOUSE,
CR IYYUNNI ROAD, MYLIPADAM, THRISSUR CITY P.O.,,
PIN - 680020
3 JARON JOSEPH JEEVAN, AGED 1 YEARS, S/O. LATE
PAUL JEEVAN JOB, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND THE
1ST PETITIONER, SEENA K.J., NEYYAN HOUSE,
CR IYYUNNI ROAD, MYLIPADAM, THRISSUR CITY P.O.,
PIN - 680020
BY ADVS.
P.HARIDAS
BIJU HARIHARAN
SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW
P.C.SHIJIN
ROSHIN MARIAM JACOB
SAI KRISHNAN UNNITHAN V.
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS, SASTHRI
BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, INDIAN OIL BHAVAN, G-9,
ALI YAVAR JUNG MARG, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI,
PIN - 400051
3 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD, SOUTHERN REGION,
INDANE CALICUT DIVISION REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGER, CALICUT INDANE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
SECOND FLOOR, PMK TOWERS, NEAR CIVIL STATION,
KOZHIKODE,, PIN - 673020
WPC 6486/24
2
4 M/S. ASHA GAS AGENCIES, YMCA ROAD, CHALAKUDY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DILEEP KUMAR M.K.,
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE V. KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING
AT MADAPPATTIL HOUSE, NELLAYI P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680307
5 DILEEP KUMAR M.K., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE
V. KUTTAPPAN, RESIDING AT MADAPPATTIL HOUSE,
NELLAYI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680305
6 SARITHA P.K., AGED 44 YEARS, D/O. KUMARAN I.P.,
PARAPPALLY HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA P.O.,
KUDUPPASSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680683
7 DIVYA ROSE MARIYA, AGED 13 YEARS, D/O. LATE
PAUL JEEVAN JOB, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
NIMISHA SOLOMAN, C/O SRAMBICKAL SOLOMAN,
PUTHURKARA DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE,
THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680002
8 NIMISHA SOLOMAN, D/O SRAMBICKAL SOLOMAN,
PUTHURKARA DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR
TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680002
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 6486/24
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are stated to be the legal heirs and
representatives of a deceased partner of a Firm, which is enjoying a
dealership in Retail Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), under licence
from the 2nd respondent - Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). They say
that when the partner died, they were entitled to be admitted to the
Firm; but that even though they had requested the 'IOC' to allow
them to do so, they have denied it, thus issuing Ext.P15
proceedings, threatening, inter alia, temporary suspension of the
dealership.
2. The petitioners assert that the actions of the 'IOC' appear
to be guided by the "Detailed Guidelines for Re-constitution of LPG
Distributorship, 2002"; and they contend that the same is illegal, to
the extent to which it "divests right of nominees and takes away
the rights of legal heirs in the process of re-constitution of the
distributorship" (sic). They thus pray that the 'IOC' be directed not
to take any further action on Ext.P15 and that they be given at least
six months time to reconstitute the Firm, as is mandatory to be
offered to them under Ext.P7, namely the aforementioned Guidelines.
3. In response to the afore submissions of Sri.P.Haridas -
learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for
the IOC - Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, submitted that his clients have
no role to play in internecine disputes between the partners of the
Firm and that they have already waited for more than nine months
for them to arrive at an amicable solution. He offered that the
petitioners can even now produce a reconstituted Partnership Deed
before the 'IOC', along with an application for reconstitution of the
Firm, which will be then properly considered by his client. He
added that, if the petitioners are willing to do so, then his client
will not stand in the way of them being granted a reasonable period
of time, which he asserted cannot be more than two months; and
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be ordered only on such
terms.
4. I am aware that this writ petition is being considered at
the stage of admission and that notices have not been issued to
respondents 4 to 8, who are the party respondents. However, in
view of the limited relief that I propose to grant in this writ
petition, I do not think they will stand prejudiced in any manner.
5. As evident from the afore narrative, the 'IOC' only
requires the petitioners and other partners of the Firm to produce
before them a re-constituted Partnership Deed as per law, based on
which, the dealership can continue. The petitioners also do not have
a case to the contrary, but they say that they are inhibited from
doing so, on account of various extenuating reasons - one among
them being the rival claim made by the former wife of the
deceased. They, however, argue vehemently that the said person -
being a divorced wife - cannot be a legal heir; and that, therefore,
the 'IOC' is bound to accept their version and allow them to
constitute the Firm, as it is legally permissible.
6. There can be no doubt that the parties are at full liberty
to constitute their Firm and produce the Deed before the 'IOC'
appositely. In fact, the impugned guidelines also do not inhibit this,
or deal with this issue because, it is a matter for the partners of the
Firm at the first instance. Whether such a constitution is possible or
not, is not an issue the 'IOC' can look into, nor are they bound by
any of the internecine disputes between the parties. These are
matters which the petitioners must resolve on their own; and
therefore, it was not necessary for them to have challenged the
Guidelines because, nothing stops them from producing a validly re-
constituted Partnership Deed before the 'IOC', in terms of law, as is
admitted by Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar above.
7. Of course, for the afore, the petitioners may require some
time; and in such view, I propose to give them three months time,
even though Sri.Gopikrishnan Nambiar has acceded only to two.
In the afore circumstances, I close this Writ Petition, without
entering into the merits of any of the rival contentions and leaving
them all open; however, with liberty to the petitioners to approach
the 'IOC' with an application for reconstitution of the Firm,
accompanied by a duly re-constituted Partnership Deed, which shall
be done not later than three months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Consequentially, on the afore application being received by the
'IOC', they will proceed to consider the same and issue appropriate
orders and complete necessary action thereon, after hearing the
petitioners as also the party respondents herein. The resultant
proceedings/order shall be issued without any avoidable delay.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore period expires, or
until the application in terms of the afore liberty is considered by
the 'IOC' and its resultant order communicated to both sides, all
further action pursuant to Ext.P15 shall stand deferred and the
status quo - as available at 10.30 A.M. today, shall be maintained
by the 'IOC'.
Sd/-
SAS/RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6486/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY MARRIAGE REGISTRAR DATED
17.12.2018
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OP 651/2015 OF
FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR, DATED 13.11.2015
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
05.03.2014
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE UNDER EXPLOSIVES
ACT, 1884 ISSUED BY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF
EXPLOSIVES, CHENNAI ON 26.03.1996 AND
RENEWED ON 29.05.2020
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL LICENSE ISSUED
BY CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY DATED
30.04.2020
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE BY
ISSUED BY REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS,
CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED
25.05.2023
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR RE-
CONSTITUTION OF LPG DISTRIBUTORSHIP, 2022
ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS
5 AND 6 TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.05.2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY
1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
12.10.2023
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER BY
TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK DATED 10.11.2023
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT BY
1ST PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
01.12.2023
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED
04.12.2023
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.12.2023
ADDRESSED TO 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED
05.01.2024
Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DRAWN
BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16.02.2024
