Madras High Court
Hindustan Pertoleum Corporation Ltd vs A.Manimaran on 10 September, 2024
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.09.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)No.842 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.7150 of 2019
Hindustan Pertoleum Corporation Ltd.,
By its Senior Regional Manager,
No.82, TTK Road, 3rd Floor, Alwarpet,
Chennai 600 018.
(now having office at)
Plot No.167-172, SIDCO,
Industrial Estate,
Kappalur, Madurai-625 008. ... Appellant
.Vs.
1.A.Manimaran
2.The Tahsildar,
Madurai East Taluk,
Madurai District. ... Respondents
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent Act praying this
Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.702 of 2015,
dated 02.04.2019.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sridher
For Respondents :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
Senior Counsel for
Mr.S.Rajasekar for R1
:Mr.D.Sachi Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
for R2
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J)
The appellant has filed this Writ Appeal, challenging the impugned order
made in W.P(MD)No.702 of 2015, dated 02.04.2019.
2. The appellant corporation had invited applications for LPG Dealership
under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV Scheme) for many places,
including the village called Kathakinaru. The first respondent herein has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submitted his application seeking dealership for the supply of LPG Gas and along
with the application, he submitted the documents for the land measuring
dimensions of 26m X 42m and 29m X 23m, situated at village called
K.Pappankulam, Kathakinaru. The appellant corporation after perusal of the
application and completed all formalities and accepted the application and
allowed him to participate in the further process. In the said process, he was
selected in the lot. Thereafter, the appellant corporation verified the places of the
land submitted by the first respondent. The first respondent's land was situated in
K.Pappankulam. Therefore, they rejected the application on the ground that the
land was not situated in Kathakinaru by passing the impugned order dated
17.12.2014. Thereafter, the first respondent filed the writ petition before this
Court in W.P.(MD).No,702 of 2015 by challenging the impugned order. The said
writ petition was allowed by the writ Court on the ground that K.Pappankulam
formed part of the Kathakinaru cluster of villages and hence, the same is not a
ground to reject the claim of the first respondent by passing the impugned order.
Challenging the same, the appellant corporation filed this Writ Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The learned counsel for the appellant corporation submitted that there is a
difference between Kathakinaru and K.Pappankulam. In the brochure, it was
called for only for Kathakinaru not for K.Pappankulam. The learned Judge of this
Court has relied the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, which is not
applicable to the present case and he submitted that as per the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court the writ Court allowing the writ petition by treating
Kathakinaru Pappankulam as part of the K.Pappankulam is not in consonance
with the scheme and hence, he seeks to set aside the same. The first respondent
has not strictly complied the condition stated in the brochure. Therefore, the writ
appeal is liable to be allowed.
4.The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first
respondent submitted the application with clear mention of K.Pappankulam,
Kathakinaru. K.Pappankulam, which forms part of the Kathakinaru Panchayat. In
the brochure, it is stated that the intended purpose of the appellant corporation is
to provide supply to the village Kathakinaru. Kathakinaru covers entire
K.Pappankulam sub hamlet also. Hence, the writ Court correctly appreciated the
same and allowed the writ petition. Even in the counter filed by the corporation,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
there is no dispute that the K.Pappankulam is a hamlet of the Kathakinaru
Panchayat. In the said circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the
same. He would submit that there was no other disqualification on the part of the
first respondent to get gas connection. He also stated that even as on date no
dealership was allotted to the village and in view of the subsequent position also,
this writ appeal is liable to be dismissed and his request to give LPG dealership is
to be considered.
5.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the second
respondent submitted that Kathakinaru Grama Panchayat comprised
K.Pappankulam also. Kathakinaru Pappankulam is the name, hence,
K.Pappankulam forms part of Kathakinaru.
6. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. 9.2 of the Brochure is as follows:
9.2.Selection will be done by draw of lot first out of all
eligible applicants who are residents of the Gram Panchayat (or
corresponding administrative/revenue structure as applicable in
the respective State/UT) of the advertised RGGLV location. In
case if no eligible candidate from the Gram Panchayat is found
or the list of eligible candidates from the Gram Panchayat is
exhausted,then only the draw would be conducted from the list
of eligible candidates residing in the Taluka/Tehsil (Or the
corresponding administrative/revenue structure as applicable in
the respective State/UT) of the advertised location.
8. Every applicant were the residents of Gram Pahchayat. Here, the Gram
Panchayat is Kathakinaru. The applicants lands also situated in the Kathakinaru
Gram Panchayat. The learned counsel for the appellant corporation admitted the
fact that the jurisdictional Tahsildar gave the certificate that the village
Pappankulam is the Gram Panchayat of the Kathakinaru. Further, as per the
notification, Pappankulam also belongs to Madurai East Taluk. In the application
also, the first respondent noted both K.Pappankulam and Kathakinaru. In view of
the above factual circumstances, K.Pappankulam also forms part of Kathakinaru.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The writ Court rightly set aside the rejection order passed against the first
respondent, which had been impugned before the writ Court. Even as on date, no
dealership was allotted. Therefore, considering the said circumstances also, there
is no merit in this writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to dismiss this writ appeal.
9. Accordingly this writ appeal stands dismissed with a direction to the
appellant to process further in accordance with law within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the
connected civil miscellaneous petition is also closed.
[P.V.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.]
10.09.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sbn
To
The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court,
Tirunelveli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
sbn
and
10.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
