B.K. Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Manoj Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Indra Prakash, Manager (LPG Sales), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, at Kozhikode in the State of Kerala, with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the F.I.R. Dated 18.7.2014 being FIR No. 258 of 2014 (Annexure No. 1) registered as Case Crime No. NIL of 2014, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Hathras. A further prayer has been made for issuing a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR and for imposing an exemplary cost of Rs. 2 Lacs upon the respondent No. 4 for filing the impugned FIR against the petitioner and two other senior officers of the Corporation without any basis and by concealing the material facts. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition has been heard at the admission stage and is being decided on merits finally.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that an L.P.G. Gas Agency was awarded to the respondent No. 4 by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in the year 1989 and the distributorship was commissioned on 31.8.1989 under the Scheduled Caste category with Sri Virendra Deo as sole Proprietor, respondent No. 4. In this regard the distributorship agreement was duly signed between the officials of the Corporation and the respondent No. 4 on 28.3.1994 (Annexure No. 2). On account of various irregularities committed by the respondent No. 4 a show cause notice was issued by the Corporation to him on 28.2.2000 requiring him to show cause why action in respect of his distributorship agreement including that of termination of the distributorship agreement be not taken against respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 24.3.2000. The distributorship agreement was terminated by the Corporation vide its order dated 12.12.2000 (Annexure No. 3). Challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.12.2000 the respondent No. 4 preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2144 of 2001 before this court, which was allowed by this court by order dated 28.9.2004 (Annexure No. 4) whereby the order dated 12.12.2000 was quashed with the liberty to the Corporation to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In view of the liberty given by this court another order was passed by the Corporation on 12.7.2005 terminating the distributorship agreement, which was again assailed by the respondent No. 4 before this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57978 of 2005, which was also allowed by this court on 30.8.2005 with a direction to the officials of the Corporation to pass a fresh order in the matter in accordance with the law.;