The first petitioner is the Malappuram District Hindustan Petroleum Association represented by the Secretary. The second petitioner is a dealer under the first respondent represented through Manager. The issue highlighted before this Court is regarding the supply of petroleum products to the dealer in Malappuram district. The second petitioner submits that the respondents are bound by the terms of agreement in Exts.P1 and P2. Ext.P1 is the memorandum of agreement styled as a dealership agreement. Ext.P2 is the petroleum products road transport agreement. The second petitioner points out various instances in which there was default on the part of the crew members and others attached to the respondents for performing the terms of the agreement. It is submitted that there is an undue delay in providing petroleum products. It is further pointed out that on 07.10.2014, one of the tanker reached the second petitioner's outlet at 11a.m, tank crew was in a violent mood and they abused the second petitioner in front of the customers. It is further submitted that at the instances of labour union, the W.P(C).No.32845 of 2014E 2 second petitioner was summoned by the third respondent. Union leader abused the second petitioner in the presence of Depot Manager. It is further submitted that the truck drivers and the union leader threatened the petitioner that he has to pay a sum of `500/- per load for decanting fee. The second petitioner highlights the various instances on which crew members acted in violation of the agreement. Therefore, it is submitted that respondents are bound to honour the commitments in Exts.P1 and P2 to ensure smooth supply of petroleum products without any delay.
2. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that several complaints were received against the second petitioner. In fact, no dealer has raised any complaint against crew members. On the other hand, Manager of the second petitioner is non-cooperative with unloading and he has abused crew members. A complaint was received from union and based on the complaint, the second petitioner was summoned to appear before the third respondent.
3. Essentially, in this Writ Petition, I am of the view issue is not regarding the right or liability of parties in performing the agreement, on the other hand it relates to the manner in which the W.P(C).No.32845 of 2014E 3 agreement is being formed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no issue with any of the dealers in Malappuram district.
5. I am of the view, the issues can be sorted out if the grievance highlighted by the second petitioner in Exts.P5 and P7 is placed before the second respondent. Therefore, the grievance shall be adverted after hearing the second petitioner or any of the authorized officials of the first petitioner and also if required, representatives of the union within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/10/12/14