SREEKUMAR G Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXHIBIT P7 proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent holding that the petitioner's 'household' is not eligible for more than one Domestic L.P.G. connection and advising him to surrender the extra L.P.G. connection which is being held in the household, is under challenge. Inter alia, the petitioner is seeking to quash Clause 2 (gg) and Clause 3 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) order 2000, as amended with effect from 10.09.2009 (herein after referred as the 'Regulation Order' for short). The petitioner is also seeking a consequential relief by way of direction commanding the respondents to restore supply of L.P.G. cylinders in his connection with Consumer No. 5111, through the 3rd respondent distributor.

(2.) A Domestic L.P.G. connection with Consumer No.5111 was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1983 at Chennai, where he was residing along with his wife and children. In the year 1989 he came back and settled at Kochi, and the connection was got transferred to Kochi, attached to the 3rd respondent's distributorship. Exhibit P1 subscription voucher and Exhibit P2 receipt evidencing payment of installation charges are produce to substantiate the above facts. The petitioner was enjoying the connection since 1989 by getting supply of L.P.G. cylinders from the 3rd respondent. In the year 2012 the 3rd respondent issued Exhibit P3 notice requiring the petitioner to produce substantial proof to show that there exist more than one 'household' in the address where the gas connection is provided. It was alleged in Exhibit P3 that there are more than one connection of 'Indane' at the address were the petitioner is residing, with Consumer No. 5814 and 5111, when one 'household' can have only one connection. On failure to comply with the request, all the said connections will be suspended, is the notice given.

(3.) INSPITE of submission of Exhibit P4, the supply was not restored, which compelled the petitioner to approach this court in WP(C) No. 15019/2012. In Exhibit P5 judgment this court, after noticing amendments brought in to the Regulation Order, observed that the competent authority has to take a decision in the matter. The Marketing Manager of the 1st respondent Company, who was the 2nd respondent in that writ petition, was directed to forward Exhibit P4 to the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent was directed to take a decision with notice to the petitioner, within a period of one month, considering applicability of the amended Regulation Order.