Madras High Court
Mrs.Shanthi Rajasekar vs The Chief Divisional Retail Sales ... on 1 December, 2021
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No. 17679 of 2014
&
M.P.No.1 of 2014
Mrs.Shanthi Rajasekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Chennai Divisional Office
No.500, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the entire records
in connection with the impugned order of the respondent dated
23.06.2014 in Ref:“COCO-Tiruvallur” and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
ORDER
In respect of the issues raised in the present writ petition
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court considered the similar issue
and passed the Judgement in Writ Appeal Nos.309 and 377 of 2010
and W.P.(MD).Nos.4532, 3962, 3481 and 1255 of 2007 on
25.08.2014.
2. The relevant portion of the said Judgement is extracted
hereunder:
“2. The aforesaid issue is no more res integra
in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mohd. Jamal and another v. Union of India [(2014) 1
SCC 201], repelling the applicability of the doctrine of
promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation on the
ground that where fresh leases have been granted by
land owners on definite terms and conditions, it is those
terms, which would govern.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
3. The second limb of subject matter of the dispute
is the M&H Contractors, who are nominees of the land
owners, and these contracts also are sought to be
terminated on the ground of less than appropriate
performance. In this behalf, there has been some
subsequent development, inasmuch as during the
pendency of the matters, the land owners were permitted
to nominate different persons as M&H Contractors,
provided they met the bench mark of the Indian Oil
Corporation. These arrangements are stated to have
continued satisfactorily.
4. The other development brought to our notice is
the communication dated 28.7.2014 of the Government
of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, which
seeks to suggest that a review of the earlier policy
decision is on the cards.
5. In view of the aforesaid, these appeals and writ
petitions are disposed of in the following agreed terms:
(i) The appeals and the petitions filed by the
land owners stand dismissed.
(ii) If the Indian Oil Corporation is satisfied
with the performance of the present M&H Contractors,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
no precipitative action would be necessary. If they are
not satisfied, then they will put the relevant parties to
notice of their intent to change on account of lack of
performance, so that the parties have a right to explain
their stand.
(iii) Needless to say, if a new policy would
come into operation, its applicability would depend on
how that policy is structured“.
3. In view of the Judgement cited supra, the present writ
petition has to be considered. Accordingly, the order impugned
passed by the respondent dated 23.06.2014 in Ref: “COCO –
Tiruvallur” is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No
costs.
01.12.2021
kan
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order / Nonspeaking order
To
The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Chennai Divisional Office
No.500, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
kan
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17679 of 2014
01.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
