Madras High Court
S.Praveen Kumar vs The Deputy General Manager on 1 August, 2022
WP.No.1987/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
WP.No.1987/2017 & WMP.No.1990/2017
S.Praveen Kumar ... 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
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indane Area Office,
500, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018. ... 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
Ref.No.CHAO/IMP/ARNI/027 dated 05.01.2017 and quash the same and
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
consequently direct the respondents to issue Letter of Intent in favour of the
petitioner for the location Arni 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 Arni
Town.
(2) The respondents, namely, the Indian Oil Corporation called for
applications from eligible persons for being appointed as Dealers of
Liquified Petroleum Gas [LPG] for Arni Town in Tiruvannamalai
District 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
location as per the Policy Guidelines. The petitioner was therefore,
given an opportunity to offer some other place. The petitioner
offered another place which was obtained by him by way of a Lease
Deed dated 01.08.2016.
(3) The respondent/Corporation refused to accept the same on the
ground that it was not in possession or control of the petitioner on
the date of the application. 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
(5) The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is
based on the Advertisement published in the newspapers where Arni
is shown as an Urban/Rural Market [U/R]. Relying upon such a
classification, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend
that Arni being an Urban-cum-Rural Market, the location of the site
for the showroom about a Kilometre and a half away from the
Municipal Limits, cannot be a ground for disqualification.
(6) Contending contra, Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, learned 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
alternating the uniform policy that has been followed by all the Oil
Companies so far. Quoting the language of the communication, the
learned 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
(7) Regarding the classification of the market as urban and rural,
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
(8) The fact that the market is classified as urban/rural, will not widen
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
vaster 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
the date of field verification. Hence, I 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.08.2022
AP
Internet : 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
Indian Oil Corporation Limited
Indane Area Office,
500, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.1987/2017
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP
WP.No.1987/2017
01.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
