WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:28665 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 PETITIONER/S: JEEJU N K AGED 56 YEARS S/O N LAKSHMANAN [LATE] , APARTMENT NO 1E, ESSAM CITY QUEEN, NARYANAN NAGAR, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673101 BY ADVS. BINNY THOMAS HELEN P.A. ATHUL ROY INDRAJITH DILEEP ABHILASH T. AMALA ANNA THOTTUPURAM RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SHASTRI BHAWAN, DR. RAJENDRA PRASAD ROAD, NEW DELHI., PIN - 110001 2 BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS TERRITORIAL MANAGER, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682302 3 THE TERRITORIAL MANGER BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION, AMBALAMUGAL, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682302 4 THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM., PIN - 683542 BY ADVS. WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:28665 C.DINESH M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, M/S. MENON & PAI, ADVOCATES K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) NAYANPALLY RAMOLA(K/687-F/2014) OTHER PRESENT: SC SRI ABEL TOM BENNY DSGI SRI DINESH GP SRI B S SYAMANTHAK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:28665 C.S.DIAS, J. --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.11056 OF 2025 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of April, 2025 JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to ensure the supply of cooking gas cylinders to its distributors without any delay and to resolve the hike in loading and unloading charges. 2. The petitioner is the General Secretary of an Association of LPG distributors. The petitioner's case is that, the 2nd respondent company has certain disputes with the trade unions regarding loading and unloading charges. The 2nd respondent is not conceding to the request of the trade unions, which in turn is causing a delay in the loading and unloading of gas cylinders. Consequently, the transporters' vehicles are stranded at the distributors site. Although the Association has intervened in the matter, the 3rd respondent is not showing any interest to resolve the issue. Due to delay in supply of the cooking gas, the distribution process is getting affected. Even though a conciliation proceedings was held by the 4th respondent, only two transporters WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:28665 participated in the proceedings. Hence, the 3rd respondent may be directed to resolve the dispute and restore the supply of cooking gas. 3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that, there were certain disputes between the trade unions and one distributor regarding the loading and unloading charges. The dispute was amicably settled by the District Labour Officer. Now, regular supply of LPG cylinders has been restored. The petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition because he is neither a distributor nor a consumer. There is no material to prove that the petitioner is representing any Association. Therefore, the petitioner cannot espouse the cause of all the distributors in the State. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, the dispute between the trade unions and the distributor has been amicably settled with the intervention of the District Labour Officer. WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:28665 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, there are similar issues all across the State, therefore, the writ petition may not be disposed off. 7. On a reading of the writ petition, I find that the writ petition is filed in the individual name of the petitioner. There is no material to substantiate that the petitioner is the General Secretary of any Association. Hence, I accept the contention of the respondents 1 to 3 that the petitioner cannot espouse the cause of all the distributors in the State. If the Association has any grievance, against the respondents 1 to 3, it is for the Association to work out their remedies in accordance with law. On a consideration of the facts and materials on record, and the submission made across the Bar, I am of the view that the writ petition is only to be dismissed, especially since the dispute is said to be settled. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rkc/04.04.25 WP(C) NO. 11056 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:28665 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11056/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.2.2025 ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL, ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE REACHED IN THE MEETING HELD ON 13.3.2025