IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that in institutional hearings, the principle that the one who hears must also decide is not absolute, provided the decision-making process is fair.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

1. The petitioner, who has been engaged in trading in petroleum products pursuant to a dealership from the 1st respondent herein under the “social objective scheme” has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P2 proceedings by which the dealership should be terminated.

2. The petitioner points out in this writ petition that she was engaged as a dealer pursuant to Ext.P1 agreement dated 21.06.2002 and that she has been running the outlet thereafter. A show cause notice dated 29.09.2022 was issued to the petitioner, proposing the termination of the dealership. The essential allegations, as per the said notice, are with reference to a complaint received from a third party to the effect that the petitioner had issued a power of attorney in favour of another person, and, therefore, the petitioner was not the person running the retail outlet. To the afore notice, the petitioner submitted detailed objections dated 12.10.2022 as evidenced by Ext.P4. Later, a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner on 21.03.2023 at the State office of the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner was heard by one Sri. Sanjib Kumar Behera, Chief General Manager of the 1st respondent herein. Ext.P5 is the minutes of personal hearing. A perusal of Ext.P5 shows that the petitioner sought for ten days time to produce Income Tax Returns and related documents like balance sheets and Profit and Loss accounts in support of the stand of the petitioner that the allegations raised against her were baseless. Ext.P5 also shows that the petitioner was granted time till 01.04.2023 to submit the additional documents as prayed for by her.

3. The petitioner submits that thereafter, nothing was heard from the side of the 1st respondent herein till October 2024, when on the 10th of October, there was an attempt to barge into the outlet of the petitioner with reference to the termination of the dealership. On the next day, 11.10.2024, such an attempt was again made, points out the petitioner. On the same date, the proceedings were pasted on the premises of the petitioner, from which she noticed that the dealership was terminated. A copy of the above proceedings dated 11.10.2024 is produced as Ext.P2 in the writ petition.

4. It is challenging the proceedings at Ext.P2 that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

5. A counter affidavit dated 23.10.2024 is filed by the respondents, essentially relying on various documents seeking to support the action taken. The counter affidavit also points out in detail the procedure followed in the case at hand.

6. I have heard Sri. Adarsh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. E.K. Nandakumar, senior counsel instructed by Smt. Ramola Nayanpally for the respondents herein.

7. Sri. Adarsh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that:

(i) The impugned order at Ext.P2 is one issued violating the principles of natural justice. He points out that the personal hearing was provided by Sri. Sanjib Kumar Behera, as seen from Ext.P5, whereas the impugned order at Ext.P2 is passed by Smt. Geetika Verma. Therefore, he points out that since the order has been issued by a different officer than the one who granted the opportunity of hearing, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, he relies on the judgments of this Court in Markose v. Tahsildar, 1995 (2) KLT 112 and Marico Industries Limited v. State of Kerala, 2003 (1) KLT 956.

(ii) There is an inordinate delay in issuing the impugned order at Ext.P2 with reference to the personal hearing as per Ext.P5. The personal hearing was conducted on 21.03.2023, and Ext.P2 order was issued on 11.10.2024, after the lapse of nearly 18 months. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of being heard, especially when a different officer has issued Ext.P2 order.

(iii) He would point out that Ext.P2 is not served on the petitioner in a manner known to law.

(iv) He relies on