Madras High Court
Dr.K.Arul Prakash vs The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd on 19 July, 2021
W.A.No.493 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
W.A.No.493 of 2013
Dr.K.Arul Prakash .. Appellant
Versus
1.The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Having its registered Office at G-9,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg Bandra,
East Mumbai 400 051.
Rep. By its Managing Director.
2.The General Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu State Office,
No.139, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Indian Oil Bhavan, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division),
Salem Divisional Office, No.234, I Floor,
NH-7, Salem-Bangalore Bye-Pass Road,
Kondalampatti, Salem – 636 010.
4.R.Bhuvaneswari
5.S.Subathra .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal has been filed under Section 15 of Letter of Patent against the order
dated 01.11.2012 passed in W.P.No.4189 of 2012.
For Appellant :Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
For R1 to R3 : Mr.Abdul Saleem
For R4 & R5 : Mr.U.Karunakaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/8
W.A.No.493 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.)
The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.No.4189 of 2012, dated 01.11.2012, in and by which, learned Single
Judge refused to entertain the writ petition praying to reject the applications submitted by
the respondents 4 and 5 for Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that when Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (in short “IOCL”) issued an advertisement in “The Hindu”, an English daily and
“Dinakaran”, a Tamil daily, on 23.10.2010, inviting applications for grant of Petroleum
Retail Outlet Dealership to various places, including the place at Katchupalli-Kornampatti
on State Highway 86, Salem District, the appellant and the respondents 4 and 5
constituting a partnership firm by name “Sri Vallabha Ganapathy Agency” applied for the
dealership and finally, the respondents 4 and 5 were selected, as they were ranked at No.1,
whereas the appellant was ranked at No.2. Therefore, the appellant gave a representation
dated 17.10.2011 to the third respondent raising three objections and they are extracted
below as stated in the proceedings dated 14.02.2012 of the third respondent:-
--> The land offered by you was a better land than the land
offered by the selected candidate;
--> HT lines were passing through the site offered by the
selected candidates with a Tree in front of the site;
--> Less mark given for your educational qualification,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.493 of 2013
capability to provide finance.
Subsequently, the third respondent, vide proceedings dated 14.02.2012, rejecting all the
objections raised by the appellant, stated that the allegation on award of less mark to the
appellant's land is incorrect and on scrutiny of the documents and investigation done, it is
revealed that the marks awarded to the appellant by the Committee was as per the
prevailing guidelines on land evaluation. Coming to the second objection of the appellant
regarding HT lines passing through the site belonging to the respondents 4 and 5 with a
tree in front of the site, the Selection Committee gave a reply stating that the lines passing
through the corner of the site is not a safety hazard, and as such, considered the fact that
the land offered by the respondents 4 and 5 has more than adequate depth to take care of
required dimension of 35m x 35m, inasmuch as the respondents 4 and 5 are in possession
of a land measuring 35m x 60m, hence, even if the area covered by the high tension lines is
omitted, the land offered by the respondents 4 and 5 was sufficient enough for the purpose
of Retail Outlet. Coming to the marks awarded for the Educational Qualification acquired
by the respondents 4 and 5, the Selection Committee came to the conclusion that since the
fourth respondent has passed B.Lit., the applicable mark of 12 has been correctly awarded
by the Committee.
3. By submitting so the reasonings given by the third respondent, learned counsel
for the appellant would further argue that the application issued by the IOCL clearly says
that the land is required for Petroleum Retail Outlet, however, the land offered by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.493 of 2013
respondents 4 and 5 has high tension overhead lines passing through the plot offered by
them, hence, such land offered by the respondents 4 and 5 ought not to have been
considered by the authorities as it is not a fit land for granting petroleum retail outlet.
Therefore, in the present case, the land offered by the respondents 4 and 5 has to be
disqualified on the ground that high tension line passing through the land offered by them
is not a safe place for running Petroleum Outlet. However, this has been wrongly
overlooked by the Selection Committee. When the same was brought to the notice of this
Court in the present writ petition, it was pleaded, learned Single Judge also has brushed
aside the said contention. Now, the land offered by the respondents 4 and 5 granting
petroleum dealership is exposed to risk and inviting danger to the public who are going to
procure the petrol from the said outlet given to the respondents 4 and 5, he contended.
4. Opposing the above prayer, learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5, drawing
our attention to the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge, submitted that when the
respondents 4 and 5 are in possession of the land measuring 40m x 61m on State highway
86, they have offered the land measuring 35m x 60m for the purpose of Petroleum Retail
Outlet, because, the required land as per the advertisement for Retail Outlet is 35m x 35m.
Therefore, if 35m x 35m is taken into consideration, there are no high tension lines passing
through the land in question. Thus, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ
petition by confirming the selection of respondents 4 and 5 for Petroleum Retail Outlet,
hence, the impugned order does not call for interference, he pleaded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.493 of 2013
5. We agree with the above said submissions of the learned counsel for the
respondents 4 and 5, for the reason that as per the advertisement for retail outlet, the
required land is 35m x 35m. As per Notes appended to Clause 15 of the Brochure, if high
tension overhead lines pass over the plot offered, the same will be disqualified. In the
present case, no doubt it is true that the respondents 4 and 5 are in possession of land
measuring 40m x 61m on State Highway 86. However, the sketch and the photographs
filed in the typed set of papers depict that three high tension lines are passing in the south-
west corner of the land and those three lines are crossing upto a length of 2.8m out of 60m
length of the plot. Therefore, since they are passing only upto 2.8m out of 60m of the plot,
as rightly decided by the learned Single Judge, the land offered by the respondents 4 and 5
is much more than the required land i.e. if 2.8m is deducted from 60m, there are no high
tension overhead lines over the land measuring 57.2m x 35m, especially when the land is
required only 35m x 35m as per the advertisement. Hence, as the land offered by the
respondents 4 and 5 has been found suitable by the Selection Committee and that
educational qualification possessed by them are also found to be correct, we are unable to
find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single
Judge warranting interference.
6. It is also to be noted that after the dismissal of the writ petition on 01.11.2012, no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.493 of 2013
interim stay was granted by this Court while entertaining the writ appeal in the year 2013
and therefore, IOCL has obtained No Objection Certificate from the District Collector,
Salem, on 18.02.2013, but, with following conditions:-
“1. In the proposed site, a tower line has been proposed to erect.
Hence, under ground tank should be installed in such a way of 12 feet
apart from the above E.B. Line on both left and right side.
2. The building should be erected in such a way of 12 feet distance
from its highest part to the above E.B. Line.
3. The petrol storage bunk should be installed strictly with the
rules of E.B. Power Grid Corporation.”
On complying with the above said conditions, the Electricity Department has also issued
electricity service connection on 26.11.2013, followed by explosive license dated 28.11.2013
issued by the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization to the respondents 4 and 5.
Since then, they are running the Petroleum Retail Outlet. Thus, the appellant having failed
to substantiate his competency and qualification to get selected in the selection held by the
respondents 1 to 3 for Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership on 14.02.2012 cannot come to the
Court assailing the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, for
the reasons stated above, the writ appeal stands dismissed. No Costs.
(T.R., J.) (V.S.G., J.)
19.07.2021
rkm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.493 of 2013
To
1.The Managing Director,
The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Ali Yavar Jung Marg Bandra,
East Mumbai 400 051.
2.The General Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
Tamil Nadu State Office,
No.139, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Indian Oil Bhavan, Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
3.The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager,
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (Marketing Division),
Salem Divisional Office, No.234, I Floor,
NH-7, Salem-Bangalore Bye-Pass Road,
Kondalampatti, Salem – 636 010.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A.No.493 of 2013
T.RAJA, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rkm
W.A.No.493 of 2013
19.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
