Madras High Court
V.Illayavendhan vs The Senior Area Manager on 14 July, 2021
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, R.N.Manjula
W.A.No.1053 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
and
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
W.A.No.1053 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.8860 of 2018
V.Illayavendhan .. Appellant
Vs
1.The Senior Area Manager
Chennai Area Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, Indane Area Office,
500, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai - 600 018.
2.R.Gokulakrishnan .. Respondents
Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order
dated 02.03.2018 made in W.P.No.44731 of 2016.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Muthusamy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan for R1
Mr.D.Sasikumar for R2
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
W.A.No.1053 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant though was selected initially, got his candidature rejected on the premise that the land selected by him was not suitable and he did not provide an alternative site despite asked to do so.
2. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition was pleased to hold as follows:-
"3. The petitioner was selected in the draw and thereafter, after conducting field verification, it was found that the property offered by the petitioner situated at Thirupachur Village is not lying within the advertised location i.e., Tiruvallur-I. The petitioner was called upon to offer an alternate land as per selection guidelines. The petitioner, instead of offering an alternative land as per the selection guidelines, called upon the first respondent to permit him to locate the show room in the land already offered by him or permit him to acquire the land for show room as per the expectation of the first respondent.
4. The above stand of the petitioner is evident from his own communication sent on 10.11.2016. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has not offered any alternative land when the first respondent informed the petitioner that the land already offered is not lying within the advertised location. Now, it is sought to be contended before this Court that as per Page 2 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.1053 of 2018 the circular dated 09.06.2016 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, the petitioner is entitled to acquire a new land and submit the same as an alternative site.
5. I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to acquire the land after the cut off date, namely, the date of application and submit the same as an alternative land. If that contention is accepted, there is no meaning in issuing a notification and inviting applications from the qualified persons having such land in the notified area as on the date of the application. Therefore, I find that the claim of the petitioner does not have any merits. When the petitioner failed to offer the land within the advertised location on the date of the application and further failed to offer an alternative land as per the selection guidelines inspite of providing him an opportunity to do so, the petitioner is not entitled to question the impugned order, which in my considered view does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed."
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled for an opportunity. The second respondent has been selected and thereafter given the distributorship only during the pendency of the writ petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made reliance upon the letter dated 09.06.2016 of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Page 3 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.1053 of 2018
4. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The aforesaid communication only deals with either the sale or cancellation of lease.
On inspection, the land offered by the appellant was found to be not within the advertised location as per the Guidelines for Selection of Regular LPG Distributors. Therefore, even on that count, the appellant was found not suitable. Despite the request made by the appellant to provide an alternative land, he did not do so. Only under those circumstances, the impugned order of cancellation was passed rejecting the candidature of the appellant.
5. In such view of the matter, we do not wish to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. However, considering the facts of the case, especially the fact that an indication was given to the appellant for consideration of his case, even after finding that the land has not been in terms with the advertised location, the first respondent is directed to return the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) deposited instead of forfeiting within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.1053 of 2018
6. With the above said observation, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(M.M.S., J.) (R.N.M., J.)
14.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
ssm
To
The Senior Area Manager
Chennai Area Office,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 018.
Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in W.A.No.1053 of 2018 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and R.N.MANJULA,J.
ssm W.A.No.1053 of 2018 14.07.2021 Page 6 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in