P.Gnanavel vs The Senior Area Manager
2023 Latest Caselaw 9680 Mad

                                                                                  WA No.916 of 2023

                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 04.08.2023

                                                         CORAM

                            THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA , CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                          AND
                                       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
                                                    WA No.916 of 2023

                     P.Gnanavel                                         : Appellant

                                  versus

                     1.The Senior Area Manager,
                       Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
                       Indane Area Office,
                       No.8/1079, Avinashi Road,
                       Coimbatore 641 108

                     2.Union of India,
                       rep. By its Secretary,
                       Ministry of Petroleum and natural gas,
                       Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi                        : Respondents


                     Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
                     against the order dated 13.02.2023 in WP No.24497 of 2021.


                     For the Appellant          :      Mr.V.Manohar

                     For the Respondents        :      Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali
                                                       for the first respondent



                                                       JUDGMENT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No.916 of 2023

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant

and Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali, for the first respondent.

2. The appellant had filed a writ petition bearing WP No.24497

of 2021 before the learned Single Judge thereby, challenging the

communication/order issued by the first respondent, thereby, denying

to award LPG distributorship to the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is the

fourth writ petition filed by the appellant. Every time, a different

reason was given for negativing the claim of the appellant. The

respondents cannot rely upon 2014 corrigendum. The application of

the appellant was under 2013 advertisement. The land offered by the

appellant was within the locality as contemplated under the

guidelines. The guidelines clearly provide that the land offered should

be at the advertised location or in the locality. The land offered by the

appellant is in the same locality. The respondents are now trying to

rely upon a different concept that was not recognised under 2013

advertisement.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No.916 of 2023

4. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, at

the time of field verification, it was noticed that the land was not

situated on the location that was sought under the advertisement.

Under the advertisement, the location of the site for the dealership

was Kaveripattinam. The land offered by the appellant is situate at

Mittahalli Village and not within the Kaveripattinam.

5. The learned Single Judge has observed that this is the fourth

Writ Petition filed by the appellant. The area/location as per the

advertisement was for 'Kaveripattinam'. The Village Administrative

Officer of Mittahalli Village has issued a certificate showing that the

land offered does not come within Kaveripattinam and is situated in

Mittahalli village.

6. The revenue officer concerned has issued the said certificate.

The field verification is done by the respondents. Learned Judge has

relied upon the order of the Division Bench in an earlier Writ Petition

filed by the appellant wherein the Division Bench observed that the

location offered by the appellant may be identified. The Village

Administrative Officer has submitted a certificate that the land

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No.916 of 2023

offered is in Mittahalli Village, and it is outside the territorial limits of

Kaveripattinam.

7. The respondents are the best judge of the location that they

have advertised for, and the land offered. The field verification is

conducted by the respondents. The certificate of the Village

Administrative Officer is also on record. There is no reason to doubt

the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer; nor the

appellant has alleged any mala fides against the Village

Administrative Officer.

8. In light of that, it does not appear that the learned Single

Judge has committed an error while passing the impugned order. The

Writ appeal as such is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.

                                                              (S.V.G., CJ.)           (P.D.A., J.)
                                                                           04.08.2023
                     Index                   : Yes/No
                     Neutral Citation        : Yes/No
                     tar

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No.916 of 2023

To

1.The Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indane Area Office, No.8/1079, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 108

2.The Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and natural gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WA No.916 of 2023

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND P.D.AUDIKESAVALU, J.

(tar)

WA No.916 of 2023

04.08.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis