Madras High Court
A.Vijayalakshmi vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited on 3 August, 2022
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013
A.Vijayalakshmi ... Petitioner
in WP.No.5043 of 2013
.Vs.
1.Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Rep. By Chief Area Manager
Indane Area Office
No.55, Anna Salai
Teynampet
Chennai 600 018.
2.K.Thasanadhan ..Respondents
in W.P.No.5043 of 2013
S.Jayakanthan ... Petitioner
in WP.No.5425 of 2013
.Vs.
1.The Chief Area Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indane Area Office
No.500, Anna Salai
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013
2.The Tahsildar
Thandrampattu Taluk
Thandrampattu
Tiruannamalai District.
3.Dasanathan ..Respondents
in W.P.No.5425 of 2013
Prayer in W.P.No.5043 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st respondent from selecting
and appointing the 2nd respondent as a dealer for Indane Gas Agencies under the scheme
of Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Sathanur, Thiruvannamalai District without
conducting an enquiry on the basis of the nativity certificate restored to the petitioner in
terms of the order made in Mu.Mu.(A4) 12105-2012 dated 10.01.2013 passed by the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai.
Prayer in W.P.No.5425 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to conduct
fresh draw for awarding Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak at Sathanur, Tiruvannamalai
District in favour of the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balu
(In W.P.No.5043 of 2013)
(In W.P.No.5425 of 2013) : Mr.C.Prakasam
For Respondents : Mr.R.Ravi
(Both Wps) Standing Counsel
for R1
(In W.P.No.5425 of 2013) Mr.U.Baranidharan
Additional Government Pleader
for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/6
W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013
COMMON ORDER
The issue involved in both the writ petitions are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common order.
2.W.P.No.5043 of 2013, has been filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the Indian Oil Corporation from selecting and appointing the 2 nd respondent as a dealer for Indane Gas Agencies.
3.W.P.No.5425 of 2013, has been filed for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the Indian Oil Corporation to conduct fresh draw for awarding the distributorship for Indane Gas Agencies.
4.Heard Mr.K.Balu, learned Counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.5043 of 2013, Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.5425 of 2013 and Mr.R.Ravi, learned Standing Counsel for R1 and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader for R2 in both the writ petitions.
5.In the present case, the petitioner in W.P.No.5043 of 2013 is concerned, she was declared to be selected in a draw that was conducted on 15.06.2011. However, the selection was cancelled mainly on the ground that the nativity certificate that was given to the petitioner was cancelled. After the cancellation of the draw, yet another draw was conducted by the Indian Oil Corporation and the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.5425 of 2013, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013 was selected. However, the certificate that was given by the 3 rd respondent was found to be unacceptable and hence, he was disqualified. The 3rd respondent, who was disqualified did not challenge his disqualification and the same became final.
6.It is seen from records that the nativity certificate given to the petitioner in WP.No.5043 of2013, which was cancelled, was subsequently restored through the proceedings dt.10.01.2013 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruvannamalai. In view of the same, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.5043 of 2013, submitted that the petitioner must be given the distributorship and there is no question of conducting any further draw by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
7.This Court would haveconsidered the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.5043 of 2013, if no draw had been conducted subsequent to the cancellation of the draw. However, after the cancellation, yet another draw was conducted and the 3rd respondent in W.P.No.5425 of 2013, was selected. In view of the same, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not be sustainable.
8.The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Oil Corporation submitted that fresh draw will be conducted by the respondent Corporation from the eligible candidates and the distributorship will be granted. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013
9.In view of the above developments, both the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the Indian Oil Corporation to immediately take steps to conduct fresh draw and permit the petitioners to participate in the same and who ever is selected, the distributorship shall be given in their favour. This exercise shall be completed by the respondent Corporation within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
03.08.2022 KP Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No To
1.The Chief Area Manager Indian Oil Corporation Limited Indane Area Office No.500, Anna Salai Teynampet Chennai 600 018.
2.The Tahsildar Thandrampattu Taluk Thandrampattu Tiruannamalai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013 N.ANAND VENKATESH. J., KP W.P.Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013 03.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6