W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 1

[C.R]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 37673 OF 2018

PETITIONER:

PAUL PANJIKKARAN

AGED 54 YEARS

MANAGER, M/S K C HORMIS, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER,

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, H O KOTTAPPURAM,

KODUNGALLUR(WITH EXTENSION COUNTER AT

CHALAKKUDY)THRISSUR DISTRICT-680664

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, CHALAKUDY

THRISSUR

2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 664

3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

THRISSUR

4 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES

PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

5 THE SECRETARY

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003

OTHER PRESENT:

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 2

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.3857 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON

8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 3857 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

KURIEN K.GEORGE,

AGED 68 YEARS

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, KWD

NO. 1, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 523.

2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 691.

3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645

4 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIERS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

5 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

6 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI 110 001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.ROJO JOSEPH THURUTHIPARA, CGC

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 4

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 4794 OF 2019

PETITIONERS:

1 K.P.RADHA

AGED 56 YEARS

PROPRIETOR, P.S.V.NATHAN, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, NEMMARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

2 K R DILEEP KUMAR,

MANAGING PARTNER, ARUVANNUR OIL DEALER, INDIAN OIL

CORPORATION KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, KOLLENGODE,

PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

3 A ABDUL REHIM

KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM

CORPORATION LIMITED, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

4 K S KUMARARAJ

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, K K SUBBAIYYAN, KEROSENE

WHOLESALE DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

LIMITED, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

5 K P KALADHARAN

MANAGING PARTNER, K.C.P.K.C.V AND COMPANY, KEROSENE

WHOLESALE DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

LIMITED, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678543.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678101.

2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678541.

3 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 6

PALAKKAD-678101.

4 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

5 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

6 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

7 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI-110001.

BY ADVS.

Mr.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL, CGC

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 5773 OF 2019

PETITIONERS:

1 T.A.RADHA

AGED 52 YEARS

MANAGING PARTNER, KRUPA TRADE LINKS, KEROSENE WHOLESALE

DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., ALATHUR,

PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678682.

2 PAUL PANJIKKARAN

MANAGER, M/S.K.C.HORMIS, KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALERS,

HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KOTTAPPURAM AND

KUZHIKKATTUSERRY, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

3 A AHAMED IBRAHIM

PROPRIETOR, M/S.M.A.AHAMED RAWTHUR AND COMPANY, KEROSENE

WHOLESALE DEALERS, BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.,

SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

4 K MOHANAN

PROPRIETOR, M/S.UDAYA AGENCIES, KEROSENE WHOLESALE

DEALERS, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD., MELAMURI,

PALAKKAD-678006.

5 T K SHESHADRI

NATIONAL OIL AGENCIES, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-

678101.

6 K T KUNJALI KUTTY

PROPRIETOR, PARAKOTTIL KEROSENE AGENCIES, KEROSENE

WHOLESALE DEALERS, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.,

EDAKKARA, VANDOOR, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 8

ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678545.

2 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KODUNAGALLOR-680664.

3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

PALAKKAD-678545.

4 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

NILAMBUR TALUK-679329.

5 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

PALAKKAD-678101.

6 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

THRISSUR-680003.

7 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 001

8 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

9 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT

OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

10 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

11 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI-110 001

BY ADVS.

Mr.K.K.SETHUKUMAR, CGC

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 9

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 13633 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

K.V.POULO AND SONS

KEROSENE WHOLESALE DEALER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683572, REPRESENTED BY ITS

PARTNER PAUL VARGHESE.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.

2 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.

3 COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

4 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT

OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

5 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

6 UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, NEW DELHI-110001.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 10

BY ADVS.

SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA

MANU S., ASG OF INDIA

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 21105 OF 2019

PETITIONERS:

1 ARUN D.MOOKKEN

AGED 59 YEARS

PARTNER, M.D. OUSEPH AND COMPANY, BPCL KEROSENE

WHOLESALE DEALERS, KWD 1/96, ERNAKULAM.

2 K.P. VARGHESE

PARTNER, K.P. VARGHESE AND SONS, KEROSENE WHOLESALE

DEALERS, KWD 5/69, BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD,

SHANMUGAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

3 PETER

MANAGER, WEST COAST AGENCIES, HPCL KEROSENE WHOLESALE

DEALER, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680732.

4 KOCHURANI JOSE

MANAGING PARTNER, UDAYA FUELS, BPCL KEROSENE WHOLESALE

DEALER, KANJIRAMATTOM ROAD, THODPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-

685584.

5 ABDUL RAHIM

PARTNER, HAJEE P. PAREED BAVA AND COMPANY, IOC KEROSENE

WHOLESALE DEALER, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-

685608.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 KANAYANNUR TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KANAYANNUR TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, SH15,

THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM.

2 KOCHI TALUK SUPLLY OFFICER,

KOCHI TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KOCHANGADI RD, PANAYAPPILLY,

CHULLICKAL, KOCHI-682005.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 12

3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, KODATHIKAVALA, CHERTHALA-688524.

4 NORTH PARAVOOR TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

NORTH PARUR TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, NORTH PARAVOOR,

CHENDAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683513.

5 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

VAIKOM TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, VAIKKOM

MUNICIPALITY, VAIKKOM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, VAIKKOM,

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686141.

6 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

CHALAKUDY TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, MUNICIPAL

JUBILEE BUILDING, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680307.

7 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

THODUPUZHA TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION,

THODUPUZHA HEAD POST OFFICE, THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,

IDUKKI DISTRICT-685584.

8 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION,

KUYILIMALA, PAINAV.P.O., IDUKKI TALUK-685602.

9 CITY RATIONING OFFICER,

CITY RATIONING OFFICE, METRO PALACE, 41/2553C(C),

XAVIER ARAKKAL ROAD, OPPOSITE TOWN RAILWAY STATION,

ERNAKULAM NORTH, KACHERIPADY, KOCHI-682018.

10 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

KUNNUMPURAM - CIVIL STATION RD., ECHAMUKU, KUNNUMPURAM,

THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

11 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

CIVIL LINE ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR -

680003.

12 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

IDUKKI DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, CHERUTHONI, IDUKKI-

685602.

13 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE

BUILDING, OPP.MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-

695033.

14 THE SECRETARY,

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 13

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES(D) DEPARTMENT, OPP.MUSEUM VIKAS

BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

15 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

16 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT

OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

17 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

18 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, A-WING, SHASTRI RAJENDRA

PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 24373 OF 2019

PETITIONER:

1 ALIYAR KUNJU,

AGED 65 YEARS

MANAGER, M/S.HAJEE P.H.MUHAMMED KUNHI AND SONS, IOC

KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, DEPOT NOS. V, V/II,

THEVALAKKARA, KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM- 690524.

2 LESLIE THOMAS THARAKAN,

PARTNER, THOMAS MATHEW AND COMPANY, IOC KEROSENE WHOLE

SALE DEALER, DEPORT NOS.III, III/I AND IV,

KARUNAGAPPILLY AND OCHIRA, KARUNAGAPPILLY, KOLLAM-

690518.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KARUNGAPPILLY, MINI CIVIL STATION, KARUNAGAPPILLY,

KOLLAM- 690518.

2 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM- 691001.

3 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND

CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

4 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE

BUILDING, OPP.MUSEUM VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-

695033.

5 THE SECRETARY,

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, OPP.MUSEUM,

VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695033.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 15

6 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

7 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT

OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

8 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

9 UNION OF INDIA,

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, A-WING, SHASTRI RAJENDRA

PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI- 110001.

BY ADVS.

Mr.A.G.ADITYA SHENOY, CGC

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 29371 OF 2019

PETITIONERS:

1 MANOJ KUMAR M.,

AGED 50 YEARS

MANAGING PARTNER, M.R.V.PRABHU AND SONS, IOC KEROSENE

WHOLE SALE DEALER, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -

688 524.

2 SANJEEV KUMAR N.,

PARTNER, NATIONAL OIL AGENCIES, IOC KEROSENE WHOLE SALE

DEALER, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688

007.

3 V.P.LEGI,

PARTNER, SAINIK OIL AGENCIES, IOC KEROSENE WHOLE SALE

DEALER, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688

007.

4 K.M.MURALEEDHARAN,

PARTNER, ALLEPPEY PETROLEUM AGENCY, BPC KEROSENE WHOLE

SALE DEALER, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -

688 007.

5 K.J.ALEXANDER,

MANAGING PARTNER, KODUMULAYIL AGENCIES, IOC KEROSENE

WHOLE SALE DEALER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT AND PATHANAMTHITTA

DISTRICTS - 688 007.

6 DR.M.S.ABRAHAM,

IOC KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688

007.

7 THOMAS ZACHARIYA,

MANAGING PARTNER, M/S.THOMAS ZACHARIYA, IOC KEROSENE

WHOLE SALE DEALER, KARTHIKAPPALLY AND MAVELIKKARA TALUK,

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KUNNATHUR TALUK IN KOLLAM DISTRICT

AND ADOOR TALUK IN PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -689 645.

8 K.K.NOUSHAD,

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 17

MANAGING PARTNER, K.K.MOHAMMED AND COMPANY, IOC KERSENE

WHOLE SALE DEALER, KAYAMKULAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690 518.

9 SUMAYYA RAFEEK,

MANAGING PARTNER, MEERAVU HAJI SONS, HPCL KEROSENE WHOLE

SALE DEALER, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -

688 007.

10 NOORJI,

PROPRIETOR, M/S.SAYED MOHAMMED HAMEED SONS, KEROSENE

WHOLE SALE DEALER, AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA

DISTRICT - 688 007.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 007.

2 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 007.

3 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 690

518.

4 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

MANAR, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -688 007.

5 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

ARANMULA, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -

689 645.

6 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 007.

7 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KAYAMKULAM, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT -

688 007.

8 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

CHERIYANAD, CHENGANNUR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688

007.

9 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 18

SASTHAMKOTTA, KUNNATHUR TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.

10 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

11 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFICER,

COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 007.

12 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.

13 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

14 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE

BUILDING, OPP. MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -

695 033.

15 THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT,

OPP. MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

16 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

17 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT

OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

18 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE

BUILDING, OPP. MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -

695001.

19 THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT,

OPP. MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

20 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

21 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, DEPARTMENT

OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

22 STATE OF KERALA,

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 19

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

23 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, A-WING, SHASTRI

RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

BY ADVS.

SRI.RAMANARAYANA PRABHU

SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL

K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

FRIDAY, THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1944

WP(C) NO. 34839 OF 2019

PETITIONERS:

1 M.K.VANAJAKSHI,

AGED 74 YEARS

KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

PROPRIETRIX, JAI JAWAN AGENCIES AT KONDOTTY AND

TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.

2 M.K.ALAVI

KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM

CORPORATION, MANAGING PARTNER, PRABHA SALES

CORPORATION, TIRUR AND PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM

DISTRICT-676 306.

3 REMESHAN T.

KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

MANAGING PARTNER, SRIHARI OIL AGENCIES, THALIPARAMBU

AND PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.

4 MEENAKSHI KAMMATH

KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

LICENSEE, L.RAJAGOPALA KAMMATH, IRITTY, MATTANNUR,

KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.

5 HARIDASAN V.

KERAOSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

PROPRIETOR, SREEDEVI ENTERPRISES, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM

DISTRICT-676 121.

6 KOOLATH MOHAMMED

KEROSENE WHOLE SALE DEALER, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION,

CHETTIPPADY, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676

319.

BY ADV S.SUJIN

RESPONDENTS:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 21

1 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.

2 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.

3 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 319.

4 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

THALIPPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.

5 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.

6 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

IRITTY, KANNUR DISTRICT.

7 THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.

8 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 306.

9 THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

COLLECTORATE, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.

10 THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE

BUILDING, OPP. MUSEUM VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-

695 033.

11 THE SECRETARY

FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES (D) DEPARTMENT, OPP. MUSEUM

VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

12 DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

13 STATE OF KERALA

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

14 UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, A-WING, SHASTRI RAJENDRA

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 22

PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.

SR.ADV.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN FOR PETITIONER, SMT.DEEPA

NARAYANAN, SR.GP

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

01.04.2022 A/W WP(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 & CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT

ON 8.4.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 23

C.R

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

--------------------------------

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & 3857, 4794,

5773, 13633, 21105, 24373, 29371, 34839 of 2019

-------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 8

th

day of April, 2022

JUDGMENT

These writ petitions are connected, and therefore, I am

disposing of these writ petitions by a common judgment. In these

writ petitions, petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the

first proviso to Clause 8A of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968 (for

short, the Order 1968).

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that W.P.(C). No.5773 of 2019 can be taken as the main case

because common grounds are raised in all the writ petitions.

Therefore, I will consider the facts and exhibits in W.P.(C). No.5773

of 2019.

3.The petitioners are Kerosene wholesale dealers. The

distribution and sale of Kerosene are regulated by various

provisions under the Kerosene Control Order, which was framed by

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 24

invoking the powers under the Essential Commodities Act. There

was a series of litigations between the dealers like the petitioners

and the Government about the payment differential cost between

the revised wholesale selling price and the pre-revision selling price

of Kerosene. Ultimately Clause 8A and its proviso were inserted by

SRO No.1083/88 dated 12.09.1988. As per Clause 8A, a wholesale

dealer shall sell Kerosene at the wholesale selling price fixed by the

District Collector from time to time under orders issued by the State

Government having regard to the provisions of Kerosene (Fixation

of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970. The first proviso to Clause 8A says

that whenever the issue price of Kerosene is revised upward, the

differential cost worked out at the difference between the revised

wholesale selling price and pre-revision selling price on the closing

stock available with the dealer on the close of business on the day

previous to the day on which the revised rate comes into force shall

be payable to the Government by the wholesale dealer. The

constitutional validity of this proviso to Clause 8A is challenged in

this writ petition. It is also contended that without furnishing the

relevant details, huge amount is demanded from the petitioners

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 25

under different heads. Those notices were also challenged in this

writ petition.

4.Heard the learned Senior Counsel

Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, as instructed by his retaining counsel

Advocate Keerthi M. I also heard the learned Senior Government

Pleader Smt.Deepa Narayanan for the official respondents.

5.The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the first

proviso to Clause 8A of the Order 1968 is unconstitutional.

According to the learned Senior Counsel, the dealers are purchasing

Kerosene from the companies, and therefore it is their property. If

there is an upward change of the price rate for Kerosine, the profit

is always entitled to the petitioners is the submission. The learned

Senior Counsel also submitted that if the 1

st

proviso to Clause 8A is

continued, it amounts to a situation where the property of the

petitioners is taken over by the Government arbitrarily without

giving compensation. The short point raised by the petitioners, in

this case, is that it violates Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no principal–agent

relationship between the Government and the dealer. The senior

counsel submitted that the Government cannot deprive the

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 26

property of an individual without paying compensation. A

compilation of decisions of this court and apex courts is produced to

support his arguments. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the

judgments in Chandrasekhara Prabhu v. State of Kerala [AIR

1976 Ker 99], Velayudhan Nair v. State of Kerala [AIR 1977

Ker 181 (FB)], Taluk Supply Officer v. Parakkottil Brothers

[AIR 1992 Ker 213] , A Venkata Subbarao and Others v. State

of AP and Others [1965 KHC 735] , State of West Bengal v.

Subodh Gopal Bose and Others [AIR 1954 SC 92] , Hindustan

Petroleum Corpn Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai and Others

[2005 (7) SCC 627] , Tukaram Kana Joshi & Others The

Power of Attorney Holder v. MIDC & Others [2013 (1) SCC

353], The State of Maharashtra v. Himmatbhai Narbheram

Rao and Others [AIR 1970 SC 1157] , KT Plantation Pvt. Ltd.

and Another v. State of Karnataka [2011 KHC 4669] and

Vidya Devi v. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

[ AIR 2020 SC 4709] .

6.The learned Senior Government Pleader, on the

other hand, submitted that there is no proper averments in the writ

petitions to challenge the constitutional validity of the first proviso

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 27

to Clause 8A of the Order 1968. The learned Senior Government

Pleader relied on the judgment in R.Senthil Babu V. State of

Tamil Nadu and Another [2009 KHC 4118]. The Government

Pleader submitted that the constitutional validity of a provision

could be challenged only if there is a violation of fundamental

rights, the wrong exercise of jurisdiction etc. The learned Senior

Government Pleader submitted that there is no such averment in

these writ petitions. The learned Government Pleader also took me

through the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling

Price) Order, 1993 and submitted that a dealer has no right over

the Kerosene. He can use Kerosene only for public distribution. In

such circumstances, Kerosene will not come within the purview of

the property mentioned in Article 300A of the Constitution of India

is the submission.

7.The short point to be decided in this case is whether

the first proviso to Clause 8A of the Order 1968 is unconstitutional

or not. It will be better to extract Clause 8A of the Order 1968:

“8A. Wholesale selling price.-- A wholesale dealer sell Kerosene

at the wholesale selling price fixed by the District Collector from

time to time under the orders issued by the State Government

having regard to the provisions of the Kerosene (Fixation of

Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970:

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 28

Provided that whenever the issue price of Kerosene is revised

upward, differential cost worked out at the difference between

the revised wholesale selling price and the pre-revision selling

price on the closing stock available with the dealer on the close

of business on the day previous to the day on which the revised

rate comes into force shall be payable to the Government by the

wholesale dealer:

Provided further that in the case of downward revision of issue

price, the dealer shall be free to sell the stock procured at the

pre-revision rate, at the rate as in force on the day previous to

the day on which the revised rate comes into force.”

8.A wholesale dealer sells Kerosene at the wholesale

selling price fixed by the District Collector from time to time under

the orders issued by the State Government having regard to the

provisions of the Kerosene (Fixation of Ceiling Prices) Order, 1970.

The first proviso to Clause 8A says that whenever the issue price of

Kerosene is revised upward, differential cost worked out at the

difference between the revised wholesale selling price and the pre-

revision selling price on the closing stock available with the dealer

on the close of business on the day previous to the day on which

the revised rate comes into force shall be payable to the

Government by the wholesale dealer. The proviso to Clause 8A was

considered by this Court in State of Kerala and Others v.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 29

Mathunni Mathew and Sons [2007 (1) KHC 678] . It will be

better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:

“3. The short question therefore to be considered is

whether the Government is entitled to collect excess amount

recovered by the respondent. The relevant provision of the

Kerosene Control Order, 1968 is as follows:

8A. Wholesale selling price.-- A wholesale dealer shall sell

Kerosene at the wholesale selling price fixed by the District

Collector from time to time under the orders issued by the State

Government having regard to the provisions of the Kerosene

(Fixation of ceiling prices) Order, 1970:

Provided that whenever the issue price of Kerosene is

revised upward, differential cost worked out at the difference

between the revised wholesale selling price and the pre-revision

selling price on the closing stock available with the dealer on the

close of business on the day previous to the day on which the

revised rate comes into force shall be payable to the

Government by the wholesale dealer:

Provided further that in the case of downward revision of

issue price, the dealer shall be free to sell the stock procured at

the pre-revision rate, at the rate as in force on the day previous

to the day on which the revised rate comes into force.

It is clear from the first proviso above that where

wholesale price is revised upwards Government is entitled to

recover the excess price received by the respondent on the

closing stock. Corresponding provision is made in the second

proviso to the above rule which entitles the respondent to

receive differential price from the Government if there is

downward revision of issue price.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 30

4. In the circumstances, we are unable to uphold the

respondent's claim because the State Government is entitled to

recover the differential price under the first proviso to R.8A of

the Kerosene Control Order. The scheme of arrangement

between the Government and the respondent is that respondent

is assured of cost-plus allowances and margin. In other words,

the issue price is fixed after providing cost, and margin to the

respondent. Whenever there is a price variation, gain or loss

should go to the Government, is the Rule. We find no

justification for the respondent to claim differential price

because if it is accepted in principle, the respondent should

suffer loss on account of downward price revision against which

respondent enjoys protection under the second proviso to R.8A.

Even though counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of

this Court in Taluk Supply Officer v. Parakkottil Brothers,

1991(2) KLT 901 : 1991 KHC 531 : 1992 (1) KLJ 311 : ILR 1992

(1) Ker. 804 : AIR 1992 Ker. 213, based on which learned Single

Judge allowed the claim and contended that the respondent is

not an agent of the Government, we do not think the decision

has any application because the relationship between the

respondent and Government is covered by Kerosene Control

Order which the petitioner has not disputed. In the said decision

the Court was dealing with a situation where there was no

provision to recover differential cost in the Kerosene Control

Order. In fact R.8A was introduced by SRO No.1083/88 dated

12.09.1988 probably to get over the decision of Division Bench

of this Court. Therefore after the amendment to the Rule by

introduction of R.8A, respondent is not entitled to differential

price recovered.”

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 31

9.The above decision (Mathunni Mathew’s case )

was relied on by another Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.347 of

2009 and that judgment was challenged before the Apex Court. The

Apex Court also dismissed Civil Appeal No.2432 of 2010 as per

order dated 21.05.2019.

10.The contention of the petitioners is that the

constitutional validity of Clause 8A of the Order 1968 is not

considered in Mathunni Mathew's case (supra). Hence there is

nothing wrong in challenging the constitutional validity of the first

proviso to Clause 8A of the Order 1968 in these cases. There is no

serious dispute about this contention. Hence this court is deciding

the issue on merit.

11.The first contention raised by the petitioners in these

writ petitions is that there is no principal – agent relationship

between the Government and the Kerosene dealers. According to

the petitioners, the restriction in the matter of conducting wholesale

trade in Kerosene will not in any way make the wholesale dealers as

the agents of Government , nor could the stock of Kerosene with

them for which they have paid the price be considered as property

of the Government. The petitioners are relying on the basic

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 32

judgment of this Court in Chandrasekhara Prabhu’s case

(supra). Admittedly the Chandrasekhara Prabhu’s case was

delivered when there was no proviso to Clause 8A in the Kerosene

Control Order. Therefore the principle in that judgment is not

applicable to the facts of this case. Similarly, the Full Bench decision

of this Court in Velayudhan Nair’s case (supra) is also not

applicable in this case because the Full Bench also considered the

matter when the first proviso to Clause 8A in the Kerosene Control

Order was not in existence.

12.Similarly, in Parakkottil Brothers' case (supra)

also, this Court only relied on the judgment in Chandrasekhara

Prabhu's case (supra) and Velayudhan Nair's case (supra). The

proviso to Clause 8A was not considered at all in those decisions

also. The other decision relied by the petitioners is Venkata

Subbarao's case (supra) delivered by the Apex Court. That was a

case relied in Chandrasekhara Prabhu's case (supra) and the

issue decided in that case is not applicable to the present case. The

other decisions relied on by the petitioners is based on Article 300 A

of the Constitution of India. Article 300 A of the Constitution of

India says that no person shall be deprived of his property save by

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 33

authority of law. According to the petitioners, the property of the

petitioners is deprived without giving compensation by inserting 1

st

proviso to clause 8A in the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968.

Therefore, the 1

st

point to be decided is whether the Kerosene given

to the petitioner can be treated as the property of the petitioner.

13. The Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968 was framed

by the State Government by invoking the powers of the Essential

Commodities Act, 1955. The terms dealer, primary wholesale

dealer, and secondary wholesale dealer are defined in clause 2 of

the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968. As per Clause 4, a

person who desires to carry on business in Kerosene as a wholesale

dealer have to apply to the District Collector for a license in that

behalf. The District Collector has to pass orders in it as per Clause

4(2) and if any person aggrieved by the order of the District

Collector refusing to grant license may appeal to the Commissioner.

As per Clause 3 of the Kerala Kerosene Control Order, 1968, on and

after the date on which the order comes into force in any area, no

person shall carry on business in Kerosene as a wholesale dealer in

such area except under and in accordance with the terms and

conditions of a license granted in that behalf by the District

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 34

Collector. The Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling

Price) Order, 1993 (for short 'the Order, 1993) was also framed by

the Central Government invoking the powers under Sec.3 of the

Essential Commodities Act. The dealer is defined in Clause 2(c) of

the above Order, 1993. Clause 3 says that no person shall use

Kerosene supplied under the Public Distribution System for any

purpose other than cooking and illumination. Clause 3(2) says that

no dealer appointed under the Public Distribution System or

transporter shall sell, distribute or supply Kerosene under the Public

Distribution System to any person other than the person to whom

the supplies are meant for. Clause 4 of the Order 1993 says that no

dealer having stocks of Kerosene supplied under the Public

Distribution System at the business premises, including the place of

storage, shall unless otherwise directed by the Government or

Government Oil Company refuse to sell, distribute or supply the

Kerosene to any consumer on any working day during the working

hours. It is also stated that no dealer having stocks of Kerosene

shall keep his business premises, including the place of storage,

closed during the working hours on any working day without the

prior written permission from the Government or the Government

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 35

Oil Company. It is also stated in Clause 4(c) that no dealer shall

sell, distribute or supply Kerosene at a price higher than that fixed

by the Government or the Government Oil Company.

14.From the above clauses in the Kerala Kerosene

Control Order, 1968 and the Order 1993, it is clear that the

Kerosene is supplied to the dealer for the purpose of public

distribution. The contention of the petitioners is that once the

Kerosene is purchased by the dealer, it is his property. What is the

meaning of 'property'? In Rustum Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of

India [1970 (1) SCC 248], the Apex Court discussed the meaning

of 'property'. Paragraph 38 of the above judgment is extracted

hereunder :

"38………………... In its normal connotation "property" means the

"highest right a man can have to anything, being that right which one

has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels which does not depend

on another's courtesy : it includes ownership, estates and interests

incorporeal things, and also rights such as trademarks, copyrights,

patents, and even rights in personam capable of transfer or

transmission, such as debts; and signifies a beneficial right to or a

thing considered as having a money value, especially with reference

to transfer or succession, and to their capacity of being

injured………………..."

15. In Guru Datta Sharma v. State of Bihar and another,

(AIR 1961 SC 1684) also, the Apex Court considered the meaning

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 36

of the term ‘property’. The relevant portion in paragraph 30 of the

above judgment is extracted hereunder :

“30 ………...Property, as a legal concept, is the sum of a bundle of

rights and in the case of tangible property would include the right of

possession, the right to enjoy, the right to destroy, the right to retain,

the right to alienate and so on. All test, of course, would be subject to

the relevant law procedural or substantive- bearing upon each of

these incidents, but the strands that make up the total are not

individually to be identified as those constituting "property."………..”

16.In Maroli Santha v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

Thalassery and another [2018 (2) KLT 15], this Court considered

the definition of 'property' in the Maintenance and Welfare of

Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It will be better to extract

paragraph 4 of the above judgment.

"4.'Property' as referred under S.2(f) of the Act would include

movable or immovable, ancestral or self acquired, tangible or

intangible. In Black's Law Dictionary, while defining 'property',

reference has been made to 'personal property. This reference shows

that personal property includes money like, goods and chattels (see

Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition). In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary

of Words and Phrases (Seventh Edition), 'property' 'is treated as a

generic term for all that a person has dominion over and its two main

divisions are real and personal. In Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon,

'property' has been referred to as an aggregate of rights, which are

guaranteed and protected by law. The definition of property under

S.2(f) of the Act takes in all kinds of interest one would have in a

transferable thing be tangible or intangible. Therefore, anything in

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 37

which one is having interest and capable of being transferred to

another would fall within the meaning of 'property' as defined under

S.2(f) of the Act. Essential elements, therefore, are 'interest' and

'transferability' of such interest. If both the elements are satisfied, all

kinds of things would attract the definition of 'property' under S.2(f)

of the Act. Therefore, if money is transferred to another on a

condition that the transferee on its transfer would provide basic

amenities and physical needs to the transferor, such transfer is

attracted for the purpose of action under S.23 of the Act."

17.Moreover in K.T.Plantation Pvt.Ltd. and another

v. State of Karnataka [2011 KHC 4669], the Apex Court

considered Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It will be better

to extract the paragraph No.110 of the above decision.

“Article 300A proclaims that no person can be deprived of his

property save by authority of law, meaning thereby that a person

cannot be deprived of his property merely by an executive fiat,

without any specific legal authority or without the support of law

made by a competent legislature. The expression `Property' in

Art.300A confined not to land alone, it includes intangibles like

copyrights and other intellectual property and embraces every

possible interest recognised by law. This Court in State of W. B. &

Others v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd & Another (2002) 4

SCC 134, while examining the provisions of the West Bengal Great Eastern

Hotel (Acquisition of Undertaking) Act, 1980, held in the context of Art.300A

that the State or executive offices cannot interfere with the right of others

unless they can point out the specific provisions of law which authorises their

rights. Art.300A, therefore, protects private property against executive action.

But the question that looms large is as to what extent their rights will be

protected when they are sought to be illegally deprived of their properties on

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 38

the strength of a legislation. Further, it was also argued that the twin

requirements of 'public purpose' and `compensation' in case of deprivation of

property are inherent and essential elements or ingredients, or "inseparable

concomitants" of the power of eminent domain and, therefore, of entry 42, List

III, as well and, hence, would apply when the validity of a statute is in question.

On the other hand, it was the contention of the State that since the

Constitution consciously omitted Art. 19(1)(f), Art. 31(1) and Art. 31(2), the

intention of the Parliament was to do away the doctrine of eminent domain

which highlights the principles of public purpose and compensation.”

18.From the above discussion, it is clear that the expression

'property' in Article 300A is confined not to land alone, it includes

intangibles like copyrights and other intellectual properties and

embraces every possible interest recognised by law. But

possession, interest, transferability, the right to enjoy, the right to

destroy, the right to retain, the right to alienate etc are the main

essential elements of a “property”. The Kerala Kerosene Control

Order, 1968 was framed by invoking the powers under Sub-sections

1 and 2 of Sec.3 of the Essential Commodities Act by the State

Government. The order, 1993 was framed by the Central

Government invoking the powers under Sec.3 of the Essential

Commodities Act.

19.Admittedly, Kerosene is an essential commodity. Kerosene

is supplied to the petitioners only for the purpose of public

distribution. A reading of Kerosene Control Order and the Order

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 39

1993, it is clear that no absolute transferable power is given to the

petitioners over the Kerosene. They can possess Kerosene only for

public distribution. Several restrictions are there in the Kerosene

Control Order and in the Rule 1993 regarding the possession and

sale of Kerosene by the dealers. In such circumstances, the

Kerosene cannot be treated as a 'property' of the dealer as meant

in Article 300A of the Constitution. The dealer has got only the

restrictive power to possess Kerosene.

20.Moreover a perusal of the first proviso to clause 8A of the

Kerosene Control Order would show that what is to be paid to the

Government is only the differential cost when the issue price of

Kerosene is revised upward and that also the only difference

between the revised wholesale selling price and the pre-revised

selling price. The second proviso to clause 8A says that in case of

downward revision of issue price, the dealer shall be free to sell the

stock procured at the pre-revision rate, at the rate as in force on

the day previous to the day on which the revised rate comes into

force. From a perusal of the first proviso to Clause 8A, it is clear

that the petitioners are not losing any amount by paying the

differential cost to the government. But according to the

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 40

petitioners, Kerosene is their property and they are entitled to the

sale price. I am afraid, I have to disagree with the petitioners on

this point. Only the difference between the revised wholesale selling

price and pre-revision selling price is directed to be paid to the

Government by the petitioners. Kerosene cannot be treated as the

property of the dealer and in such circumstances, simply because

the petitioners purchased the Kerosene from the oil company, they

have no absolute right over the Kerosene, in the light of the

provisions in the Essential Commodities Act, Kerala Kerosene

Control Order and Rule 1993. In such circumstances, Article 300A

has no application at all in this case. Except for the violation of

Article 300A of the Constitution, no other contention is raised by

the petitioners to challenge the constitutional validity of proviso to

clause 8A.

21.The counsel for the petitioners then took me through

ground Nos.H to L in WP(C) No.5773 of 2019. It will be better to

extract the relevant grounds hereunder:

"H. Clause 8A of the Kerala Kerosene Dealers was introduced in

1988 to get over the difficulty of Ext.P8 judgment wherein this

Hon'ble Court has held that the dealer is entitled to the difference

in price. Now, the constitutional validity of Clause 8A will have to

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 41

be considered in the light of Article 300A of the Constitution of

India. Although the right to property is no more a fundamental

right it remains still as a Constitutional Right. Therefore, one can

be deprived of his property by an Act of law, or authority of law.

Respondents for that purpose introduced Clause 8A of the

Kerosene Control Order. Even if it is stated that Clause 8A is an

authority to deprive the Kerosene Dealers right on the property,

viz, the Kerosene purchased by them, the next question would be

whether the deprivation can be without compensating the owner

of the property. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized the

principles underlying Article 300A by stating in the decision

reported in (2013) 9 SCC 725 wherein the Apex Court held that

the property of a person can be deprived only by some valid

process of law.

I. In a decision reported in (2013) 3 SCC 764 the Apex Court again

has held that the deprivation of property by exercising the power

of eminent domain by the State cannot be exercised without

noticing that property right is still enjoying a constitutional

protection under Article 300A. It further pointed out that when

the profit of the owner viz, in this case the Wholesale Kerosene

Dealer is taken away by a statutory provision viz, clause 8A of the

Kerosene Control Order without any procedure, simply by

declaring that such profit will ensure to the State and not to the

dealer. This blanket power is not in conformity with the

constitutional right conferred upon the State in Article 300A as

such a power is restricted by the very same Article viz, there

must be an authority of law which is to say that there cannot be

an exercise of such authority of law without paying compensation.

J. Clause 8A by its nature is a compulsory acquisition. It is

permissible but cannot be done without compensating the owner.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 42

Since compensation is not awarded Clause 8A offends Article

300A.

K. In another case in connection with Land Acquisition reported in

(2016) 4 SCC 631 it was held that being a welfare State statutory

authorities are bound to not only pay adequate compensation but

also to rehabilitate the person displaced. In the case of Kerosene

dealers since what is sold ie, the Kerosene is the property of the

dealers, any profit arising on the date of sale on account of an

upward revision in price should go to the dealer and Clause 8A to

the extent it deprives the dealer of such profit is deprivation of

property which is protected under Article 300A.

L. The 2nd proviso to Clause 8A of the Kerosene Control Order lays

down that the Kerosene Wholesale Dealer can in the event of a

downward revision in the price of Kerosene sell the product at the

pre-revised rate. However, as already stated above and as

evidenced by the document produced along with the Writ Petition,

where there is a downward revision though Clause 8A provides

that the dealer is entitled to sell the product at the pre-revised

rate, more often than not the dealers are directed to sell the

product at the reduced rate.”

22.As far as the constitutional validity based on Article 300A

is concerned, this Court already found that Article 300A of the

Constitution has no application to Kerosene purchased by a dealer.

The grounds raised in the writ petition are mainly based on Article

300A of the Constitution. It is also contended that the profit of the

owner of the property is taken away by a statutory provision and

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 43

Clause 8A of the Kerosene Control Order without any procedure,

simply declare that such profit will go to State and not to the

dealer. It is argued that the above blanket power is not in

conformity with the constitutional right conferred upon the State in

Article 300A. According to the petitioners, such power is restricted

by the very same Article, in which it is stated that there must be an

authority of law which is to say that there cannot be an exercise of

such authority of law without paying compensation. According to

the petitioners, clause 8A, by its nature is a compulsory acquisition.

It is also stated that it is permissible but cannot be done without

compensating the owner. On this point also, I cannot agree with the

petitioners. As I observed earlier, the Kerosene is not the property

of the dealer. Kerosene is only given to the petitioners for

distribution through public distribution system with certain

restrictions.

23.In such circumstances, the Government need not compensate

the dealer for taking the profit based on first proviso to clause 8A.

The other points raised in the above grounds are all connected to

Article 300A of the Constitution. In the light of the discussion made

above, to the effect that Article 300A has no application to

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 44

possession of Kerosene by dealers, there is no merit to those

contentions. Therefore, the contention that clause 8A is illegal and

ultra vires to the Constitution cannot be accepted. Except the

contention based on the Article 300A of the Constitution, no other

contention is raised by the petitioners. Therefore, in my opinion,

there is nothing to interfere with the first proviso to clause 8A of

Kerala Kerosene Control Order. The respondents are free to recover

the amount in accordance to the first proviso to clause 8A. It is

contended in the writ petition that the split up details of the amount

claimed is not given to the petitioners while issuing demand notices

based on the first proviso to clause 8A. The respondents in these

writ petitions will make sure that the split up details are given to

the petitioners in these writ petitions while claiming the differential

cost based on the 1

st

proviso to clause 8A.

With the above observations, these writ petitions are

dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

JV

SKS

das

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37673/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED COMMON JUDGMENT IN

WA NOS. 414 AND 446/1988 DATED 12.11.1991

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

WA. NO. 216/2003

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.7.2017

ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES TO

THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER IN THE

STATE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 28.7.2018

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.10.2018

ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 29.10.2018

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND

RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)

NO.30249/2005.

EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.347/2009.

EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2432/2010.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 46

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3857/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-10-2016 IN

W.P(C) NO. 3329/2016

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04-04-2017 IN

W.P(C) NO. 11824/2017

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08-02-2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26-09-2018 IS

ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE COURT

DATED 07-07-2017 IN IA NO. 9748/2017 IN

W.P(C) NO. 33229/2016

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NO.S

414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12-11-1991.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21--12-2006

IN WA NO. 216/2003.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 21-11-

2018 IN W.P(C) NO. 37673 OF 2018.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO-

30249/2005

EXHIBIT R4 B TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-2-2009 IN

W.A.347/2009

EXHIBIT R4 C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO-2432/2010

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4794/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2016 IN

WPC.NO.33229/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2017

I.A.NO.9748/2017 IN WPC.NO.33229/2016.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 1ST

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 3RD

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 4TH

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.9.2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 5TH

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.1.2018 IN

WPC.NO.23216/2017.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

15.9.2018 OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN

WA.NOS.414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12.11.1991.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

WA.NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

20.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL

SUPPLIES TO THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

IN THE STATE.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 48

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

21.11.2018 IN WPC.NO.37673 OF 2018.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGENT IN WPC NO.

30249/2005 DATED 22.08.2008.

EXHIBIT-R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2009 IN

WA NO.347/2009.

EXHIBIT-R4(c) TRUE COPY OFTHE ORDER DATED 21.05.2019 OF THE

HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL

NO.2432/2010.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 49

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5773/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2016 IN

WPC.NO.33229/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2017

IA.NO.9748/2017 IN WPC.NO.33229/2016.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.9.2018

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.9.2018

ISSUED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST

PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.9.2018

ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 1ST

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.7.2018

ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 2ND

RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

15.9.2018 OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN

WPC.NO.23216/2017 REFERRED TO IN THE

COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL

SUPPLIES DATED 19.1.18.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN

WA.NOS.414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12.11.1991.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

WA.NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.7.2017

ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES TO

THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER IN THE

STATE.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 50

21.11.2018 IN WPC.NO.37673 OF 2018.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)

NO.30249/2005.

EXHIBIT R8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.347/2009.

EXHIBIT R8(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2432/2010.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13633/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT 21.3.2017 IN WPC

NO.36131 OF 2016.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.8.2018 ISSUED

BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12.9.2018

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11.4.2019 IS

ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA

NOS.414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12.11.1991.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

W.A.NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

20.7.2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL

SUPPLIES TO THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

IN THE STATE.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

15.9.2018 OF THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC

NO.23216/2017 REFERRED TO IN THE

COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL

SUPPLIES.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

21.11.2018 IN WPC NO.37673 OF 2018.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)

30249/2005

EXHIBIT-R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A 347/2009

EXHIBIT-R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE

SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2432/2010

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21105/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA NOS

414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12.11.1991.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

WA NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED

20.07.2017 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL

SUPPLIES TO THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER

IN THE STATE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 05.03.2019 ISSUED

TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE TALUK SUPPLY

OFFICER, KANAYANNUR.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 28.05.2019 ISSUED

TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE TALUK SUPPLY

OFFICER, KANAYANNUR.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.05.2019

ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE

CITY RATIONING OFFICER, ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.06.2019

ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE

TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, THODUPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2016 IN

WP(C) NO.33229/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE

COURT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.07.2017 AS IA

NO.9748/2017 IN WP(C) NO.33229/2017 PASSED BY

THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

21.11.2018 IN WP(C) NO.37673 OF 2018 PASSED

BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC

NO.30249/2005.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 53

EXHIBIT R13(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.347/2009.

EXHIBIT R13(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2432/2010.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 54

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24373/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA

NOS.414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12.11.1991.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

WA.NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.07.2017

ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES TO

THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER IN THE

STATE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2016 IN

W.P.(C)NO.33229/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE

COURT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.07.2017 AS

I.A.NO.9748/2017 IN W.P.(C)NO.33229/2017

PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

21.11.2018 IN W.P.(C)NO.37673 OF 2018 PASSED

BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)

NO.30249/2005.

EXHIBIT R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.347/2009.

EXHIBIT R4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME

COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2432/2010.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29371/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA

NOS.414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12/11/1991.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/12/2006 IN

WA NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20/07/2017

ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES TO

THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER IN THE

STATE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/10/2016 IN

W.P.(C) NO.33229/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE

COURT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/07/2017 AS IA

NO.9748/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.33229/2017 PASSED

BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

21/11/2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.37673 OF 2018 PASSED

BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34839/2019

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WA

NOS.414 AND 446/1998 DATED 12.11.1991.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2006 IN

WA NO.216/2003.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 20.7.2017

ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES TO

THE DISTRICT/TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER IN THE

STATE.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2016 IN

WPC NO.33229/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE

COURT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.7.2017 AS IA

NO.9748/2017 IN WP(C) NO.33229/2017 PASSED BY

THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED

21.11.2018 IN WPC NO.37673 OF 2018 PASSED BY

THIS HON'BLE COURT.

TRUE COPY

P.A.TO JUDGE

2022/KER/20231

W.P.(C).Nos. 37673 of 2018 & Conn.cases 57

2022/KER/20231