Madras High Court
Mrs.G.Sumathy vs The Deputy General Manager on 1 August, 2022
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
WP.No.930/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
WP.No.930/2017 & WMP.No.935/2017
Mrs.G.Sumathy ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Deputy General Manager
LPG, Marketing Division,
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indian Oil Bhavan,
139, Nungambakkam High Road
Chennai 600 034.
2.The Senior Area Manager
Trichy Area
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indane Area Office, ''Triveni''
3rd Floor, B-35, Shastri Road
Thillai Nagar, Trichy 620 018. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the entire records in
connection with the impugned order of the 2nd respondent in
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.930/2017
Ref.No.TRAO/IMP/TIRUVARUR/11 dated 27.12.2016 and quash the same
and consequently direct the respondents to issue Letter of Intent in favour of
the petitioner for the location Tiruvarur Town under open category pursuant
to notification dated 21.09.2013.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sriram for Mr.P.Kannan
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan
Standing counsel
ORDER
(1) Challenge in this writ petition is to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed as a Distributor for LPG in Thiruvarur Town.
(2) The respondent, namely, the Indian Oil Corporation called for applications from eligible persons for being appointed as Dealers of Liquified Petroleum Gas [LPG] for Thiruvarur vide its Advertisement dated 21.09.2013. The petitioner, who had applied for, was selected in the draw of lots. Subsequently, during field verification, it was found that the place offered by the petitioner for showroom was not within the limits of advertised location as per the Policy Guidelines. 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 The petitioner was therefore, given an opportunity to offer some other place. The petitioner offered another place which was obtained by her by way of a Lease Deed dated 30.09.2016. (3) The respondent/Corporation refused to accept the same on the ground that the Lease Deed was registered after the date of application, i.e., 30.09.2016. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this writ petition.
(4) Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner would, relying upon the communication dated 09.06.2016 by the Deputy General Manager, LPG [Sales] of IOC, addressed to the Deputy Secretary, LPG, Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, wherein a suggestion has been made to permit the Oil Companies to accept an alternate land even if the instruments are registered after the date of the application, contend that the benefits of the communication should also be extended to the petitioner and the respondent/Corporation should be directed to accept the alternate place offered by the petitioner.
(5) The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 based on the Advertisement published in the newspapers where Tiruvarur is shown as an Urban/Rural Market [U/R]. Relying upon such a classification, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Tiruvarur being an Urban-cum-Rural Market, the location of the site for the showroom being away from the Municipal Limits, cannot be a ground for disqualification. (6) Contending contra, Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, learned Standing counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation would submit that the communication dated 09.06.2016 is not a policy decision and it cannot have an effect of altering the uniform policy that has been followed by all the Oil Companies so far. Quoting the language of the communication, the learned Standing counsel would further argue that the language of the communication itself suggests that it would apply only to cases where the leasees or the owners of the land who had applied for being appointed as dealers, have either cancelled the Lease Deed or sold the land and not for persons who had offered the land outside the location.
(7) Regarding the classification of the market as urban and rural, 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, learned Standing counsel would submit that the same would not confer a right on the petitioner to have the showroom outside the advertised location. The classification as urban and rural is that of the market and not the area of operation. There are certain dealers who are appointed for urban areas and there are certain dealers appointed for rural areas. The essential difference is in their area of operation. While an urban dealer is confined to a smaller urban area where the population density is more and therefore, the number of customers that would be allotted to him will be within the smaller area. Whereas, in a rural area, to accommodate the same number of customers, a dealer has to essentially serve a larger area. The classification of urban or rural or urban/rural is based on the area that is required to be covered by the dealer to serve the same number of customers. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely upon the said classification and contend that being a dealer in a rural area, he / she would be entitled to have a showroom outside the advertised location. (8) The fact that the market is classified as urban/rural, will not widen 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 the location advertised so as to include the locality. Merely because the dealer has got a showroom in the locality within the sweep of his operation, the same cannot be considered as one sufficient to qualify him for being appointed as a dealer. The classification of the market is only for the purposes of allotting number of customers located in a larger area and not for altering the location of the dealership. Therefore, the contention based on minute differences between the meanings of location and locality cannot be countenanced. (9) As regards the first contention of Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioner based on the letter dated 09.06.2016, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the said contention. As rightly pointed out by Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, learned Standing counsel for the respondents/Oil Corporation, the said letter being an internal communication will not have the effect of altering the policy of the Oil Companies which has to be uniform. Further, the said letter as suggested by its language, would apply only in cases where the applicants had either cancelled the lease or sold the property between the date of Advertisement and the date of field verification. Hence, I 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 do not see merit in both the contentions.
(10) The writ petition therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner would claim refund of the sum of Rs.25,000/- paid by the petitioner. (11) In this regard, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 14.07.2021 in V.Ilayavendhan Vs. The Senior Area Manager, Chennai Area Office, Indian Oil Corporation, Chennai and Another made in WA.No.1053/2018, has observed as follows:-
''5.....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.'' (12) In view of the same, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent / Indian Oil Corporation to return the sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.08.2022 AP Internet : Yes Index : Yes To
1.The Deputy General Manager LPG, Marketing Division, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indian Oil Bhavan, 139, Nungambakkam High Road Chennai 600 034.
2.The Senior Area Manager Trichy Area Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indane Area Office, ''Triveni'' 3rd Floor, B-35, Shastri Road Thillai Nagar, Trichy 620 018.
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No.930/2017 AP WP.No.930/2017 01.08.2022 9/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis