Madras High Court
Sathya Sekhar Elumalai vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... on 2 August, 2022
WP.No.28457/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.08.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
WP.No.28457/2016 & WMP.No.24565/2016
Sathya Sekhar Elumalai ... Petitioner
Vs
1.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
rep.by its Managing Director
No.17, Jamshedhi Tata Road
Mumbai 400 020.
2.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
rep.by its Authorised Senior Regional Manager
''Petro Bhavan'', 3rd Floor, New No.82
Old No.47, TTK Road, Alwarpet
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 records
pertaining to the order of the 2nd respondent dated 30.07.2016 reference
No.CHNLRO/AVK/LPG rejecting the petitioner's distributorship at
Gudiyatham District, Vellore, under OPEN category Advertised on
21.09.2013, quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to confirm
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28457/2016
the selected candidature of the petitioner based on the earlier order dated
29.06.2016 in reference No.CHNLRO/AVK/LPG/IMP-2013-14.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar
For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.Abdul Saleem for
M/s.AAV Partners
ORDER
(1) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the 2nd respondent /
Corporation rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for being
appointed as a LPG Distributorship for Gudiyatham Town in Vellore
District.
(2) By a publication dated 21.09.2013, the Oil Companies called for
applications from interested and qualified persons for being appointed
as dealers of Liquified Petroleum Gas [LPG]. The petitioner applied
and he was selected in the draw of lots that was held on 29.06.2016.
The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards inspection fee.
(3) Upon field verification, it was found that the showroom plot offered
by the petitioner was outside the municipal limits of Gudiyatham.
Since it was outside the advertised location, the petitioner was asked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28457/2016
to show some other property. By a communication dated 02.08.2016,
the petitioner was given ten days time to offer other property. Even
before that the respondents/Corporation called for a re-drawal for
selection on 04.08.2016. However, the petitioner sent a reply on
05.08.2016 stating that because the market type is stated as ''rural'',
the Oil Corporation cannot insist on the showroom being within the
municipal limits of Gudiyatham. This stand appears to have been
taken on the strength of the classification made in the Advertisement
issued by the Oil Companies on 21.09.2013.
(4) The petitioner did not offer any other land. Though the petitioner had
claimed that he has produced certain documents at the time of field
verification, the FVC Report dated 28.07.2016, does not evidence
such production of documents by the petitioner. The FVC Report
states that location of showroom building is not within the advertised
location.
(5) Heard Mr.P.Satheesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.Abdul Saleem, learned counsel for the respondents/Corporation.
(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28457/2016
market is classified as ''rural'', the petitioner should be allowed to have
the showroom outside Gudiyatham municipal limits also. I do not
think such a contention could be accepted. The classification of a
market as urban, rural or urban/rural depends on the density of the
population and the number of customers available within the area of
operation of the dealer.
(7) I have dealt with the similar issue in WP.Nos.930 and 1987 of 2017
vide order dated 01.08.2022. I do not see any reason to take a
different view in the case on hand.
(8) Hence, the writ petition 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.
(9) 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28457/2016
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.''
(10) In view of the same, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent /
Corporation to return the sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited by 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.
02.08.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28457/2016
To
1.The Managing Director
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
No.17, Jamshedhi Tata Road
Mumbai 400 020.
2.The Authorised Senior Regional Manager
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
''Petro Bhavan'', 3rd Floor, New No.82
Old No.47, TTK Road, Alwarpet
Chennai 600 018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.28457/2016
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
AP
WP.No.28457/2016
02.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
