The court found an error in interpretation that led to an improper stay order and allowed the review petition.

ORDER

Anil K. Narendran, J This review petition is listed before this Division Bench, based on the orders on the administrative side, since the learned Judge who authored the judgment sought to be reviewed [Amit Rawal, J.] demitted office.

2. This review petition is one filed invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 16.04.2025 of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.776 of 2025, which was one filed by respondents 1 to 14 herein-appellants, invoking the provisions under Section 5 (i) of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958, challenging the interim order dated 10.04.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.15265 of 2025, which was one filed by them seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 policy on Customer Transfer - Market Restructuring dated 21.02.2025 issued by Three Oil Marketing Companies, and also Exts.P8 and P8(a) communications dated 04.04.2025 and 05.04.2025, as being arbitrary, illegal, beyond authority, ultra vires the Unified Selection Guidelines of 2016, unconstitutional and violative of the fundamental rights under ArticleS.14 , 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India . They have also sought for other consequential reliefs.

3. On 10.04.2025, when W.P.(C)No.15265 of 2025 came up for admission the matter was admitted on file. The learned Deputy Solicitor General of India took notice for the 1^st respondent. Notice by speed post was ordered to the 2^nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel took notice for respondents 3 and 4. The learned Single Judge granted an interim order dated 10.04.2025, which reads thus;

“3. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, particularly the law laid down by this Court in Vembanad Gas Agencies v. Union of India and others (W.A.No.1785 of 2019), wherein the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with an identical matter pertaining to the earlier policy of the oil marketing companies, held that it was prerogative of the oil marketing companies to define the territorial jurisdiction of the distributors and that the petitioner was the 5^th respondent in the said writ appeal, and further the said decision has been followed by two other Division Benches of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment and W.P.(C).No.34439 of 2019, and further more, the judgment in Vembanad Gas Agencies is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is pending consideration as SLP No.6943 of 2022 along with the SLP arising out of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Shailaja R. Khanvilkar v. Union of India , I am not satisfied that the petitioner has fulfilled the trinity parameters for an interim relief as prayed for in the writ petition.

Hence, the petitioners’ prayer to stay the operation and implementation of Ext.P1 policy is declined. Nonetheless, it is made clear that, any transfer of customers based on Ext.P1 policy would be subject to the result of the writ petition.” (underline supplied)

4. On 16.04.2025, when W.A.No.776 of 2025 came up for admission before a Division Bench of this Court, during vacation sitting, the writ appeal was disposed of by the judgment dated 16.04.2025. Paragraphs 6 and 7 and also the last paragraph of the judgment dated 16.04.2025 read thus;

“6. The opening line of the policy dated 21.02.2025 reveals that the Ministry of Petroleum had revisited the clauses as mentioned above of the 2018 policy, which was subject matter of challenge in the erstwhile litigation, and again had brought the existing LPG distributors under the umbrella, whereas the guidelines issued in 2016 still remain in vogue, and have not undergone any sea-change, therefore, under the garb of those clauses, the existing distributors cannot be disturbed violative of Articles 19 and 300A of the Constitution of India