Madras High Court
V.Gowtham vs The Senior Regional Manager on 10 August, 2021
W.A.No.501/2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.501/2019 and CMP.Nos.4354, 4357, 5439, 5440, 6068,
6070/2019
V.Gowtham ... Appellant
-vs-
1. The Senior Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Kochi Regional Office,
Seaport-Airport Road,
Irumpanam Post, Kochi-682 309.
2. The Joint Director of Explosives,
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
3. R.S.Sowmya ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
against the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.31708 of
2016 dated 13.02.2019.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/11
W.A.No.501/2019
For Appellant : Mr.V.Prakash,
Senior Counsel
for M/s.K.Rajendra Prasad
For 1st respondent : Mr.M.Vijayan
for M/s.King & Partridge
For 2nd respondent : Mr.Sidharth
For 3rd respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was pronounced by T.RAJA.J)
This Writ Appeal has been directed against the order of the
learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.31708 of 2016 dated
13.02.2019, thereby dismissing the case of the writ
petitioner/appellant to cancel the order selecting the 3rd respondent for
LPG Distributionship for Tiruppur (Nallur) Location.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the appellant applied for Distributionship of the
Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinders (in short ''LPG'') in Ward No.38,
Nallur, Tiruppur Town, pursuant to the advertisement given by the 1st
respondent dated 21.09.2013. One of the conditions shows that an
applicant has to own or possess a land by means of a lease of not less
than 15 years, with an extent of 3 meters by 4.5 meters in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
concerned location. This being one among the other conditions, the
writ petitioner/appellant, applied for the LPG distributionship along
with all the relevant documents well before the last date on
22.10.2013. Since the selection of the applicant had to be made by
means of draw of lots from among the eligible applicants, the Draw of
lot was scheduled on 13.07.2016 and he was informed by letter dated
11.7.2016 that on 13.07.2016, when the draw would be held, a
visiting dignitary would ask to select from the lots. In the said draw,
the 3rd respondent was selected for LPG distributionship for the
relevant area, namely, Nallur-Tirupur Town.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted
that thereafter, on enquiry, the appellant came to know that the 3 rd
respondent who was selected initially produced the lease deed for the
land in Survey Number 186/1C, Nallur Village, Tiruppur. But the said
land was not situated in Ward No.38, Tiruppur City Municipal
Corporation and it is, in fact situated in RVE Nagar in Ward No.39
which shows that at the time of the application, the 3 rd respondent was
not at all an eligible candidate. Besides, the 3rd respondent had also
executed a Cancellation Deed dated 28.05.2015 for the lease held by
her. Immediately after coming to know about the same, the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
submitted an objection to the 1st respondent, namely, The Senior
Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Kochi
Regional Office, Kochi, by letter dated 14.07.2016. The said objection
was also acknowledged by the 1st respondent. On receipt of the same,
the 1st respondent has also sent a reply dated 01.08.2016 mentioning
clearly therein that the 3rd respondent has cancelled the said lease on
28.05.2015 that clearly shows that the 3rd respondent was not eligible
to be included in the list of eligible candidates for the draw of lots.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted
that in view of the above admitted factual position, the appellant
should have been selected as he had a fair chance of success. But
instead of accepting the case of the appellant, the 1st respondent has
not cancelled the selection of the 3rd respondent for LPG
Distributionship for Nallur, Tiruppur Town location. Therefore, the Writ
Petitioner/appellant filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.31708/2016 on the
ground that the impugned order of selection selecting the 3rd
respondent was in violation of the Clause 6 (viii) stipulated by the
respondent Oil Companies. Therefore, the same is liable to be
interfered with as the selection was made without considering the fact
that the land in question for establishing the showroom itself is falling
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
outside the advertised location, that the selection was made without
considering the fact that the land shown at the time of selection was
not available with the 3rd respondent, that the same was used by
another LPG delaler by name P.S.Bharat Gas Agency and that the
impugned selection was made on the acceptance of the alternate land
given by the 3rd respondent for selection which was against the
principles and conditions stipulated by the respondent Oil Companies.
Therefore, the present Writ Appeal has to be allowed, it is pleaded.
5. A detailed Counter Affidavit has been filed by the selected
candidate and supporting the same, the 1st respondent has also filed a
counter accepting the substitution of the land made by the selected
candidate which cannot be accepted. Once the advertisement shows
that on the date of making application and also on the date of draw of
lot, the person should possess a requisite land, in the present case,
admittedly, the selected candidate while showing 3 metres x 4.5
metres of land for the show room place for the LPG distributionship in
the application has admittedly cancelled the said lease of land on
28.05.2015 and when the draw of lot was held on 13.07.2016, the 3 rd
respondent was having a different land than the one shown and
mentioned in the application filed before the last date on 22.10.2013
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
that clearly shows that the applicant having not altered or substituted
any land, applied for selection of LPG Distributionship ought not to
have been accepted and selected. But this aspect has been completely
overlooked by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the present Writ
Appeal has been filed and allowing the appeal, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside and a direction be issued to the selected
appellant for running the LPG Distributionship for Ward No.38, Nallur,
Tirupur Town, he pleaded.
6. Opposing the above submissions, learned Counsel for the
1st respondent submitted that although an advertisement was issued
inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the distributionship
of the LPG for the Ward No.38, Nallur-Tirupur Town and 58 applicants
were qualified for the drop of lots, 53 members were present at the
time of draw of lot, considering the qualification and the compliance of
all the conditions by the 3rd respondent, she was allowed to take part
in the draw of lot and she was selected in the draw of lot. Since
several people questioned one or the other conditions, several cases
were pending in various courts, finally, the matter went up to the Apex
Court. In the meanwhile, during the interregnum period, since various
requests were received by the 1st respondent for substitution of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
land for running the LPG Distribution ship, as a policy decision, the 1st
respondent accepting the requests for substitution, allowed the 3rd
respondent to substitute the land. Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit
filed by the 1st respondent also clearly shows that a clarification was
issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of India, MOP&NG by
Indian Oil Corporation vide Letter ref SL/1702 dated 09.06.2016 in this
regard which shows that the selected candidates have cancelled their
lease in respect of the lands shown in their applications. Therefore, an
opportunity was provided to the selected candidates to offer the
alternate lands. On that basis only, the request of the 3 rd respondent
made on 22.07.2016 was also accepted.
7. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that
since the clarification dated 09.06.2016 issued in Letter SL/1702 by
the Indian Oil Corporation has not been questioned by anyone
including the appellant herein and finally the 3rd respondent was
selected on the basis of offering the alternate land, it is too late to
question the same. Yet another plea raised in favour of the selected
candidate shows that when the selected candidate both on the date of
making application and also on the date of holding draw of lot on
13.07.2016 had possessed the land-in-question to run the showroom,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
the Selection Committee after selecting the 3 rd respondent by the draw
of lot rightly undertook inspection and after verification of the land-in-
question possessed by the 3rd respondent, issued the LPG
distributionship on 13.07.2016. From then onwards, the 3rd
respondent has been running the LPG distributionship at Nallur-Tirupur
Town. Therefore, the learned Single Judge finding no merit
whatsoever has dismissed the Writ Petition. Therefore, no interference
is called for, he pleaded.
8. We also find merits on the findings and conclusions
reached by the learned Single Judge. When the advertisement was
issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications from qualified
candidates for the distributionship of the LPG cylinders for the Ward
No.38 Nallur-Tirupur Town, 48 people had applied. When the draw of
lot was held on 13.07.2016, 53 people were present for the draw.
Ms.R.S.Sowmya, D/o.R.Subramaniam, Application Sl.No.107046 was
declared as selected candidate. Since she had substituted the land-in-
question, her candidature was challenged stating that the selected
candidate, namely, 3rd respondent has given one land for showroom
whereas after canceling the lease deed on 28.05.2015, the 3rd
respondent selected has brought in another land without the leave and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
permission of the 1st respondent that was a mistake committed by the
writ petitioner/appellant herein. The reason being that when a delay
had occurred before holding the draw of lot, several litigations were
initiated by various candidates. Ultimately, the case went upto Apex
Court. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the aggrieved parties
also filed SLP.No.4634/2015 etc. before the Apex Court and finally, an
order was passed on 09.05.2016. Pursuant to the order passed by the
Apex Court, the 1st respondent fixed a date for draw of lot on
13.07.2016 and all the applicants qualified were informed about the
date of draw of lot by way of a communication dated 29.06.2016 as
well as by way of an advertisement in The Hindu and Daily Thanthi
Newspapers dated 11.07.2016 and thereupon 48 applicants have
participated in the draw of lot held on 13.07.2016 in which the 3rd
respondent was selected as per the proceedings of the draw for
selection of LPG Distributionship issued by the 1st respondent. Since
the Indian Oil Corporation in their letter dated 09.06.2016 has
permitted the substitution of the lands-in-question based on the same,
the selected 3rd respondent herein cancelling the lease deed dated
28.05.2016 has acquired another land, therefore, the learned Single
Judge has rightly accepted the selection of the 3 rd respondent made by
the 1st respondent and it appears that from the date of selection, till
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
date, the 3rd respondent has been running the LPG Distributionship
without any interruption. Hence, we do not find any infirmity or
illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.
9. In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and the same is
accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
(T.R.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
10.08.2021
tsi
To
1. The Senior Regional Manager,
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Kochi Regional Office,
Seaport-Airport Road,
Irumpanam Post, Kochi-682 309.
2. The Joint Director of Explosives,
Shastri Bhavan,
Haddows Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.501/2019
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
tsi
W.A.No.501/2019
10.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
