Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 980 (KER)

John S. v. Union of India

2020-11-18

P.V.ASHA

body2020
ORDER : P.V. Asha, J. 1. The petitioner, who was allotted LPG distributorship by the 3rd respondent Corporation pursuant to a notification issued on 30.12.2017, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the cancellation of the letter of intent issued to him in Ext. P12 for distributorship of LPG gas and the renotification issued by the Corporation in Ext. P14 inviting applications for appointment of LPG distributors. 2. It is stated that Ext. P14 notification is with respect to the very same location for which Ext. P1 letter of intent was given to petitioner. According to the petitioner, on account of various problems, which were not because of any default on his part, he could not start the distributorship despite his earnest efforts. It is stated that when consent was obtained from all the authorities concerned and permit was also issued by the Panchayat, the said permit was cancelled subsequently, on the basis of a Supreme Court judgment. It is stated that the petitioner had been under treatment for heart disease from January, 2018 onwards and there was practical difficulty in proceeding with the matter. It is stated that he had also requested for alternate arrangements by shifting the location and also for permission for reconstitution of the distributorship adding a partner, in view of his physical disability. The contention of the petitioner is that Ext. P12 order cancelling the letter of intent issued to him has been passed without hearing him. 3. The learned Standing Counsel points out that Ext. P12 order was issued only on 14.03.2020 after giving sufficient time to petitioner to commence the functioning of the LPG distributorship. Ext. P12 refers to the letters dated 24.10.2018, 30.11.2018, 03.01.2019, 02.02.2019, 19.02.2019, 12.08.2019, 07.12.2019 etc. and stating that nothing was heard from the petitioner regarding the update of the work. According to them, as per the LOI issued on 30.12.2017, all the formalities were to be completed within four months and the distributorship should have been commissioned by 30.04.2018. 4. It is seen that Ext. P12 order is issued after considering the representation Ext. P11 and that too after show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 07.12.2019, that too after giving sufficient time to petitioner. 5. The respondents have stated that even in the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has not stated anything about the progress towards commissioning of the distributorship. P12 order is issued after considering the representation Ext. P11 and that too after show cause notice was issued to petitioner on 07.12.2019, that too after giving sufficient time to petitioner. 5. The respondents have stated that even in the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner has not stated anything about the progress towards commissioning of the distributorship. The letter of intent was cancelled in accordance with clause 12.25 of the Unified Guidelines. 6. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that petitioner has to be given an opportunity of hearing pointing out the physical disabilities and the impediments, which stood in the way of commissioning of the distributorship, I am of the view that the respondents have given the petitioner sufficient time after the Letter of Intent was issued on 14.12.2017. It would also appear that the petitioner would be able to participate in the tender on the basis of the Ext. P14 notification. In case, the petitioner submits an application pursuant to the re-notification Ext. P14, Ext. P12 order shall not stand in the way of consideration of application of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.