DR. PRIYESH V.R vs THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J
DR. PRIYESH V.R – Appellant
Versus
THE BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN, SHRI.PRAVEEN K.S., SHRI.ALPHIN VARGHESE
For the Respondents: SHRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SHRI.K.JOHN MATHAI, SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN, SRI.KURYAN THOMAS, SHRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM, SHRI.RAJA KANNAN, SMT.AKHILA NAMBIAR

Table of Content
1. review of dealership application rejection (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. adherence to advertisement criteria (Para 4 , 5)
3. final ruling on the writ petition (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P5 Communication issued by the Respondent/Oil Marketing Company by which his application for dealership of a Petroleum Retail Outlet was rejected for the reason that the land offered is situated in Kannur District, whereas the advertised location is in Kasargod District.

2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that, as per Ext.P1 Advertisement, the area advertised is “Vellur to Pilicode on NH66”. The area Vellur comes within Kannur District, and hence the land offered by the Petitioner is coming within the stretch “Vellur to Pilicode on NH66” which satisfies the locational requirements as per Ext.P1 Advertisement.

3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent/Oil Marketing Company contended that in Ext.P2 Application itself, it is clear that the land offered is in Kannur, whereas the location advertised as per Ext.P1 Advertisement is in Kasargod District.

4. I have considered the rival contentions.

5. When t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document