M/S NILESHWAR GAS AGENCIES & OTHERS v. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **FRIDAY, THE 24[TH] DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946** ## **WP(C) NO. 198 OF 2024** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 M/S. NILESHWAR GAS AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. K.K.NARAYANAN, H.P.GAS DISTRIBUTOR, RAJA ROAD, NILESHWARAN (P.O), KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314** - **2 M/S. MARUTHI GAS AGENCIES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.K.BABUJEE BHAT, H.P.GAS DISTRIBUTOR, BANK ROAD, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671121** - **3 H.P.GAS DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION MANGALORE R.O. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR.ABIJEETH. M, REGISTERED OFFICE AT RAJA ROAD, NILESHWARAN (P.O), KASARAGOD, PIN - 671314** **BY ADVS. JAWAHAR JOSE CISSY MATHEWS SAFEER BAWA A.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS, SASTRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001** - **2 THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAING DIRECTOR, PETROLEUM HOUSE, 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, PIN - 400020** - **3 THE REGIONAL MANAGER HIDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, L.P.G.REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, DEO GRATIAS BUILDINGS, CHILIMBI, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,KARNATAKA, PIN - 575006** **WP(C) NO. 198 OF 2024 -2-** **BY ADVS. PREMSANKAR R- R1 GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M 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)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24[th] day of May, 2024** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners 1 and 2 are LPG dealers of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited-the 2[nd] respondent. The third petitioner claims to be an association of such dealers. 2. The Ministry of Petroleum of Natural Gas, Government of India-the 1[st] respondent, directed the Petroleum companies to undertake bio-metric Aadhaar authentication of their consumers. Based on such communication, the third respondent addressed its distributors including petitioners 1 and 2 as per Exts.P3 and P4 e-mail communications, requiring them to carry out the e-KYC process. It is thereupon that the writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs :- W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 2 :- _“i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, not to burden the distributors with the obligation to carry-out the e-KYC of the customers._ _ii. Declare that the Petroleum Companies alone has been burdened with the obligation to carry-out the e-KYC of the customers, as is evident from Exhibit-P2 letter issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas._ _iii. Declare that the Petroleum Companies cannot further burden the distributors like the petitioners 1 and 2, to do the mandate to carry-out the e-KYC of the customers in Exhibit-P2 letter, free of cost, without conducting any feasibility study._ _iv. Grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary, in the facts and circumstance of the case.”_ 3. I have heard Sri.Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.C.Krishna, the learned Central Government Counsel for the first respondent and Sri.Paulose C. Abraham, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the petitioners are not against carrying W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 3 :- out the e-KYC process, but their grievance is only with regard to the financial liability they have to bear in the process. For the e-KYC process, the distributors are required to have bio-metric devices. The delivery boys are required to have an application-“HP GAS Vitran” application downloaded on their mobile phones, to undertake the e-KYC process. Petitioners 1 and 2 cater the needs of more than 40000 customers. They distribute an average of 750 cylinders per day. If the delivery personnel are burdened with the additional task of carrying out the e-KYC process, it will affect the efficiency of the said personnel and affect with their delivery task. Therefore, the petitioners will be required to employ additional persons to carry out the e-KYC process. The financial liability that the petitioners will have to bear for, employment of such personnel, acquiring bio-metric devices, providing mobile phones to enable installation and usage of “HP W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 4 :- Gas Vitran” app etc., have not been taken into consideration by the respondents. The petitioners will have to incur huge financial liability towards the same. Such liability cannot be imposed upon them. Exts.P3 and P4 communications are thus liable to be interfered with on the ground of arbitrariness and unreasonableness, it is contended. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have denied the averments in the writ petition. According to the respondents, the bio-metric devices required to carry out the e-KYC process is already with the petitioners and they are being used for grant of new connections since the past several years. All that is additionally required is, downloading of the “HP Gas Vitran” app in the mobile phones of the delivery personnel. The process of obtaining e-KYC is simple and training is being given by them to the delivery personnel. If any additional training for the staff of W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 5 :- the petitioners are required, it will be duly provided on request. It was also contended that in terms of clauses 12 and 24(a) of Ext.P1 dealership agreement, the petitioners are obliged to comply with the request for doing the e-KYC process of the existing consumers. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the relevant clauses in the dealership agreement, and Exts.P3 and P4 communications issued based on the same suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Others (1991) 1 SCC 212,**_ the learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the power of judicial review, to satisfy the test of reasonableness, extends even to contractual matters. Having demonstrated that the directions in Exts.P3 and P4 are without taking note of the financial implications and are arbitrary and unreasonable, thus violating Article 14 of the W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 6 :- Constitution, they are liable to be interfered with, it is contended. The learned counsel for the petitioners would also contend that, the petitioners on being compelled to incur expenditure for carrying out the e- KYC process, their constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution is being trampled upon. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in _**Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India (1978) 2 SCC 50**_ , the learned counsel would argue that, money is also a property falling within Article 300A of the Constitution and deprivation of the same through Exts.P3 and P4 without due process of law cannot be countenanced, it is urged. 7. A reading of Ext.P2 shows that the e-KYC process is required to be undertaken for authentication of Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana Scheme (PMUY) and Pratyaksh Hanstantrit Labh (PAHAL) beneficiaries. PMUY is a scheme introduced by the Ministry with the objective of providing ‘deposit free LPG connections’ to W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 7 :- women from poor households. PAHAL is a scheme introduced to curb the diversion of subsidised LPG. The intent behind issuance of Ext.P2 is to ensure that the benefits under the Scheme reaches the intended beneficiaries. The distributors are the direct point of contact of the consumers. In the circumstances, the respondent company was fully justified in issuing Exts.P3 and P4 requiring the distributors to carry out the e-KYC process. They would be justified in giving such instructions to its distributors even without reference to the terms in Ext.P1 distributorship agreement. At any rate, clause 24A of Ext.P1 agreement requires the dealer to perform such directions issued by the respondent Corporation for the proper carrying out of the dealership of the Corporation. The direction in Exts.P3 and P4 is, as noticed earlier, to ensure that the benefit of subsidy and deposit free connections enures to the concerned. W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 8 :- 8. The only grievance voiced against carrying out of such process by the petitioners is the financial liability. While the petitioners claim that there is huge financial implication to depute additional personnel, purchase of bio-metric devices and mobile phones, the respondent Corporation would contend that the bio-metric devices are already available with the distributors and are being used for grant of connections since the past several years. All that is required is the downloading of “HP Gas Vitran” application in the mobile phones of the delivery personnel. The process of obtaining e-KYC is very simple and sufficient training in the said regard is granted to such personnel by the Corporation. They also undertake that if any further training is required it can be provided on request. 9. Considering the object behind the process and also the contention urged by the respondent Corporation with regard to the infrastructural requirements to carry W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 9 :- out the process, this Court is unable to find any element of arbitrariness or unreasonableness in Exts.P3 and P4 communications to make it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So also I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners that under the process there is infringement with the right to property recognized under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. There is no material to find that there is any such deprivation of the property including money of the petitioners. 10. The petitioners cannot keep away from carrying out the e-KYC process required to be carried out by the Ministry of Petroleum and as instructed by the respondent Corporation in Exts.P3 and P4, contending that it would result in financial burden to them. If at all there occurs any financial liability and the petitioners claim that it is to be borne by the respondent Corporation, it is for them to take W.P.(C) No.198 of 2024 -: 10 :- appropriate steps in the said regard before the appropriate forum on proof of such damages. There is no scope or reason for interference with Exts.P3 and P4. No other contentions have been urged by the petitioners. The contentions urged are bereft of merits. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN JUDGE** kns/- //True Copy// P.S. to Judge ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 198/2024** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** |**Exhibit -P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DEALERSHIP AGREEMENT DATED**| |---|---| ||**16-5-2020 EXECUTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AND**| ||**THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit -P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18-10-2023**| ||**ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND**| ||**NATURAL GAS TO THE CHAIRMAN/CMD OF THE**| ||**PETROLEUM COMPANIES I.E. IOCL/BPCL/HPCL.**| |**Exhibit -P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED**| ||**16-11-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**Exhibit -P4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DATED**| ||**27-11-2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**RESPONDENT EXHIBITS**|| |**Exhibit R2 (a)**|**True copy of the email dated 08.02.2023**| ||**advising distributors/deliverymen to upgrade**| ||**HP Vitran App to latest version**| |**PETITIONER EXHIBITS**|| |**Exhibit-P5**|**True copy of the relevant pages of the**| ||**citizens/clients charter issued by the2nd**| ||**respondent during October 2016.**| -----