The court affirmed that procedural irregularities do not invalidate decisions unless actual prejudice is demonstrated, emphasizing the importance of institutional decision-making in administrative law.

JUDGMENT :

S.MANU, J.

The Petitioner in W.P.(C)No.36046/2024 has filed this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by the judgment dated 12 November 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge. Appellant approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P2 and P3 and allied reliefs.

2. Appellant had entered into a dealership agreement with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. on 21 June 2002. She was engaged as a dealer of a Petroleum retail outlet at Jagathy, Thiruvananthapuram District. The Corporation received a complaint from one Harisankar in October 2020 regarding the management and operation of the retail outlet. A show-cause notice was issued to the Appellant on 21 January 2022. The notice was issued after a committee nominated by the competent authority of the 1st Respondent company made enquiries regarding the allegations. The Appellant submitted a reply dated 5 February 2022. After examining the reply of the Appellant, the 2nd Respondent issued a show-cause notice for termination to the Appellant on 29 September 2022. In the show-cause notice, various factual aspects which prompted the company to proceed with termination of the dealership and the response offered by the Appellant were narrated in detail. Relevant clauses of the agreement were referred to. The company arrived at a conclusion that the breach of the terms of the agreement was obvious and therefore called upon the Appellant to show-cause as to why the dealership shall not be terminated. Strangely, along with the writ petition the show-cause notice dated 21 January 2022 and the reply submitted by the Appellant were not produced. Those documents are in fact very relevant as far as the issue involved in the case is concerned. To the show-cause notice issued on 29 September 2022, the Appellant replied on 12 October 2022 by Ext.P4 reply. Personal hearing was given to the Appellant on 21 March 2023. Thereafter by Ext.P2 notice dated 11 October 2024, the Corporation terminated the agency. The petitioner filed the writ petition shortly after receiving Ext.P2.

3. The Respondent Corporation filed counter affidavit refuting the contentions of the Appellant. In response to the counter affidavit, the Appellant filed a reply affidavit. Writ petition was thereafter heard by the learned Single Judge. As noted at the outset, the same was dismissed by judgment dated 12 November 2024.

4. The retail outlet was allotted to the Appellant in 2002 under the social objective category (Scheduled Caste (SC) Category). The crux of the complaint against the Appellant was that the unit was mismanaged and was under benami operation. According to the company, its Vigilance Department duly investigated the complaint and finding the allegation to be correct, steps were taken in accordance with the established procedure. From the notice of termination under challenge it can be gathered that 7 items of specific violations were noticed by the company regarding which explanation was sought from the Appellant. Specific violations pointed out in Ext.P2 are as under: -

“I.The Bank Statement from 01.04.2020 to 31.10.2020 of one Smt. Sandhya reveals that the daily sales proceedings are deposited in Smt.Sandhya's Current Account (A/c No.14160200004337) and then transferred to M/s.Vigneswara Fuels Current Account (A/C No:14160200003065) and then to your SAP account for taking load. On verifying the RO statement, the transactions are matching.

II. Sri.Harisankar, who alleges himself that his wife Smt. Sandhya has been managing and operating your retail outlet M/s.Vigneswara Fuels has submitted copies of unfilled, signed blank cheques of you from SBT, Sasthamangalam Branch.

III. Documents like correspondence to Trivandrum Corporation, correspondence to FIR No.633/2014 shows that Smt.Sandhya is involved in the RO operation.

IV. On investigation, it was found that you have submitted a notarized consent dated 06.06.2015 to transfer the dealership to Sri.Harisankar (the complainant) or Smt. Sandhya (wife of the co