Madras High Court
J.Pratabh vs The Deputy General Manager on 12 June, 2023
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.10684, 10685 and 12883 of 2020
J.Pratabh .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy General Manager,
(LPG-S) Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road,
Chockkikulam, Madurai-625 002. .. Respondent
Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the proceedings of the impugned order in
Ref.No.IOC04113010418092017 dated 10.09.2020 on the file of the
respondent and to quash the same and further directing the respondent to
grant the Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak (DKV) distributorship to the
petitioner for Sedapatti Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents : Mr.K.Muraleetharan
1/10_________
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
ORDER
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the
impugned order in Ref.No.IOC04113010418092017, dated 10.09.2020
on the file of the respondent and to quash the same and further to direct
the respondent to grant the Durgam Kshetriya Vitrak (DKV)
distributorship to the petitioner for Sedapatti Village, Peraiyur Taluk,
Madurai District.
2.Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.K.Muraleetharan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
3.It is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Sedapatti
Village, Peraiyur Taluk, Madurai District and he is a graduate in
Commerce and also carrying on agricultural activities. Since there is no
Indane Gas Agency in Sedapatti Village, the residents of the village are
served through the agency situated in Usilampatti and Peraiyur.
2/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
Therefore, the respondent had published an advertisement dated
20.08.2017 calling for applications from eligible persons for acting as
distributors for LPG. The petitioner had submitted his application
through online on 18.09.2017. The respondent is governed by the
guidelines for awarding agency in the name of “Unified Guidelines for
Selection of LPG distributor”.
4.The petitioner would submit that there are about 18 applications
including himself and to the best of his knowledge, he alone was
qualified to be appointed as a distributor. The petitioner would further
submit that one of the criteria for qualifying the LPG distributorship is
that the applicant should be either a owner or lessee of the land
measuring a minimum extent of 15 x 6 meters(5 cents). The petitioner
has submitted in his application that he was a lessee in respect of the land
bearing Survey No.190/4A situated in Alligundam Village. He has also
taken on lease another land measuring 21 cents in S.No.84/1D4C, as is
evidenced by a lease deed, dated 19.09.2017. Out of 18 candidates, 4
candidates including himself were short listed for drawal of lots. On
3/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
24.11.2017, the drawal of lots was held and one Gurumaran was selected.
The said Gurumaran was not a resident of Sedapatti Village. Hence, the
petitioner has filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.22929 of 2017 before
this Court. This Court, by order dated 27.02.2019 dismissed the writ
petition stating that the same was premature as the qualification would be
verified only after the drawal. Further, this Court directed the respondent
to conduct field verification (FIC) simultaneously for all the four
candidates. This order was challenged by the respondent in W.A(MD)No.
1288 of 2019. The said writ appeal was allowed and the said observation
was set aside.
5.Thereafter, in the field verification, the said Gurumaran was
found ineligible. After nearly two years ago, the second drawal was
conducted on 20.02.2020 and the petitioner was selected. On the very
same day, the petitioner has submitted his credentials and he was then
informed that the land offered by him in Alikundam Village, was 4 kms
away from Sedapatti and hence, he was directed to offer an alternative
land. Therefore, the petitioner had produced the registered lease deed,
4/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
dated 19.09.2017 in respect of an alternative land. At that point in time,
the petitioner noticed that the area was wrongly mentioned as one cent
ie., 0.00.5 ares, instead of 21 cents (0.08.5 acres). Therefore, a
rectification deed came to be executed on 27.02.2020 and the same was
submitted to the respondent. However, the respondent had passed the
impugned order rejecting his candidature. As against which, the
petitioner is before this Court.
6.Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would submit that subsequently the petitioner has purchased
nearly 3 ½ acres of land. He would further submit that the other two
candidates will not qualify as they did not belong to Sedapatti Village.
He would further submit that the impugned order was wrong, inasmuch
as the rectification deed is only a deed rectifying the mistake and the
lessor himself has acknowledged the error and executed the rectification
deed and therefore, the respondent ought not to have rejected the
petitioner's candidature. He would further submit that in the event of the
Court coming to a conclusion that the impugned order is correct, then the
5/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
observation should be made that if the candidature of the other
candidates are rejected, the respondent would thereafter consider the
petitioner's application.
7.Mr.K.Muraleetharan, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent would submit that the petitioner herein has come forward
with contrary documents. In the first instance, he had shown the land
which is not located in Sedapatti Village. Thereafter, he had produced a
registered lease deed in respect of one cent of land, whereas the
guidelines acknowledged that the applicant should have a minimum of 5
cents of land either as ownership or as lessee. On the date of the
application, he made rectification in the lease deed by correcting the size
of the land as 21 cents. After the date of selection, and before the drawal
of lots it was the land measuring one cent that has been submitted and it
is only after the completion of selection that the rectification deed has
been executed. That apart, the alternative land which was offered during
the field verification was registered on 30.05.2019 (3 acres of land
purchased by the petitioner). He would also rely upon the Division
6/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1277 of 2019. In the aforesaid
judgment, the Division Bench had observed as follows:
“10.The legal principle culled out form the above
decision is that the dates fixed in the brochure/guidelines
were sacrosanct and producing a notarized lease deed
instead of a registered lease deed, does not meet the
eligibility criteria. This decision is required to be borne in
mind to understand the importance of the various terms and
conditions mentioned in the brochure/guidelines. The
respondent has accepted the conditions and applied for grant
of LPG Distributorship and he cannot risile from the
conditions/stipulations contained therein. Undoubtedly, in the
matter of award of contracts/dealerships/distributorships, the
Court can examine as to whether there is any error in the
decision-making process and cannot substitute the decision
taken, unless it is established that the decision was vitiated
on account of fraud, mis-statement or for any other mala fide
reasons.”
8.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the
learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
7/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
9.The application of the petitioner was rejected on the following
two grounds.
(i)The original land offered was not situated in the locality.
(ii)When at the time of making online application, the petitioner
has submitted in the application in respect of land measuring only one
cent which is contrary to the guidelines, even according to the petitioner,
prescribed an extent of 5 cents.
10.The petitioner thereafter attempted to rectify the error by filing
a rectification deed nearly an year after his submission and also offering
an alternative land which has been subsequently purchased. The
petitioner attempted to put across the submission that the measurement
giving in the registered lease deed dated 19.09.2017 was an oversight.
However, a mere perusal of the registered document would indicate that
the extent has been rightly given as one cent, since the details of the
corrections that have been shown at the foot of the deed would clearly
show the extent as 0.00.5 ares, this correction is made not only one place,
but also in two places. Further, a mere perusal of the four boundaries in
8/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
the original lease deed and the rectification deed would also clearly show
that the property in question in these two documents are different.
Further, the petitioner has submitted his application after fully the
comprehending terms of the contract/ guidelines. Having done so, the
petitioner cannot now contend that he should be given an opportunity as
the mistake in the documentation regarding measurement was an
oversight. The petitioner is fully aware of the guidelines, which is
clearly evidenced from the writ petition that he has filed against
Corporation in W.P.(MD)No.22929 of 2017.
10.In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to
interfere with the order of the respondent, who seeks to appoint their
agent. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Ns
9/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
P.T.ASHA, J.
Ns
To
The Deputy General Manager,
(LPG-S) Indian Oil Corporation Limited,
Indane Area Office, No.2, Race Course Road,
Chockkikulam, Madurai-625 002.
W.P.(MD) No.12507 of 2020
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.10684, 10685 and 12883 of 2020
Dated: 12.06.2023
10/10_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
