[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
T.Jeeva Ramesh vs The General Manager on 19 January, 2026
Author: R.Vijayakumar
Bench: R.Vijayakumar
W.P(MD).No.13763 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ORDER RESERVED ON : 09.01.2026
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.13763 of 2024
and WMP(MD).Nos.12104, 12106 and 12108 of 2024
T.Jeeva Ramesh ....Petitioner
Vs
1.The General Manager
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
South Zone Office
Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai
4th Floor, Gandhi Irvin Salai
Egmore, Chennai – 8
2.The Head of Regional Office
HPCL, Madurai Retail RO
1st Floor, BSNL CMTS Bhavan
70 Feet Road, Ellis Nagar
Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 016 ....Respondents
....Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to
the impugned order made by the 2nd respondent dated 17.06.2024 in respect
of the petitioner's application in HPC16930555866150 and quash the same as
illegal and consequently confirm the candidature of the petitioner for Retail
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
W.P(MD).No.13763 of 2024
Outlet Dealership for the location ' within 5 km from Kalayarkoil Village on
NH85 towards Sivagangai'.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for Mr.M.Rajarajan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sridhar
ORDER
The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order
passed by the second respondent on 17.06.2024 wherein the application of
the petitioner for award of retail outlet dealership by Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not
having minimum frontage as specified in the advertisement.
(A).Factual Matrix:
2.The second respondent herein has issued an advertisement on
28.06.2023 for award of retail outlet in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. As per
the said advertisement, only online application should be submitted and no
documents or print out of the application should be filed in the office unless
requested. The petitioner herein had made an application on 27.08.2023 for
the location of 'Within 5 km from Kalayarkoil Village of NH85 towards
Sivagangai, Sivagangai District' under open category, the application was
scrutinized online.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
3.The petitioner being the selected candidate was directed to pay a
security deposit of Rs.50,000/- for making field verification of the
documents. The petitioner was the only candidate under Group-I category in
the advertisement for that location. A perusal of the application reveals that
the land that was mentioned in the application belongs to the petitioner's
father in Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 with a frontage of 35 meters.
4.On 19.10.2023, a communication was sent to the writ petitioner
directing him to submit an affidavit, land documents etc. Accordingly, the
petitioner has uploaded the same and it was verified on 09.01.2024. The
petitioner has deposited the security deposit of on 29.10.2023. The land
evaluation was carried out by the committee on 08.06.2024. The committee
found that the land offered by the writ petitioner was having only 29 meters
of frontage whereas the required frontage is 35 meters. Therefore, the
impugned rejection order was passed on 17.06.2024 and the same is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
(B).Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:
5.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, his father is
the owner of Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 at Kollangudi Village, Kalayarkoil
Taluk, Sivagangai District and he had obtained an affidavit as per Appendix-
III from his father. By mistake, he had not mentioned the Survey No.107/2 for
which he had obtained an affidavit from a third party by way of another
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
Appendix-III. If all the three Survey Numbers are put together, the petitioner
would be having 35 m. of frontage. By mistake, Survey No.107/2 was not
mentioned in the application form. In fact, after the rejection order, he had
purchased the same from the third party on 19.07.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that
another candidate who had applied under a different category was not able to
submit the security deposit. Apart from these two candidates, no other
candidate had applied for retail outlet. In such circumstances, no prejudice
would be caused to the respondent in awarding the retail outlet to the writ
petitioner based upon the Appendix-III affidavit given by the third party or
based upon the sale deed dated 19.07.2024. He had further submitted that the
respondents cannot stand on technicality, otherwise that would result in loss
of business to the second respondent for at least for the next two years. The
petitioner is having land with 35 m. of frontage as on today and there is no
competition from anyone. By awarding outlet to the petitioner, no other
private individual is likely to be affected. Instead of standing on technicality,
the respondent authority could consider the application of the writ petitioner
and proceed to award the retail outlet.
7.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submitted that the petitioner has applied under Group-I category. Under
Group-I category, affidavit and Appendix-III could be obtained only from the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
blood relatives/family members. In the present case, the petitioner has
obtained an affidavit from his father with regard to Survey Nos.107/3 and
107/4 which put together result in frontage of 29m. and not 35m. The
petitioner had enclosed another affidavit under Appendix-III from a third
party for Survey No.107/2. If the petitioner is utilizing the land of a third
party, he should have applied under Group-II. When the petitioner has
specifically applied only under Group-I, his application cannot be considered
or treated under Group-II. The petitioner not having the required frontage of
35m. as per Appendix-III submitted by the father of the petitioner, is not
eligible for being considered and therefore, the impugned order of rejection
was issued.
8.The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 426 ( The General
Manager, Business Network Planning (Retail) Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited and another Vs.P.Soundarya) wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that when an application is filed in one Group, it
cannot be considered in other Group. Hence, he prayed for sustaining the
order passed by the respondents.
9.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused
the material records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
(C).Discussion:
10.A perusal of the application submitted by the writ petitioner clearly
reveals that it has been filed under Group-I. Therefore, the petitioner has to
submit the documents with regard to the ownership of lands either in his
name or in the name of his family members alone. In the present case, the
petitioner has submitted an affidavit from his father for Survey Nos.107/3 and
107/4. These two survey numbers put together provide a frontage of 29m. and
not 35m. as mandated in the notification.
11.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, he had filed
another affidavit under Appendix-III from a third party namely Anandan
Pillai for Survey No.107/2. When all these three survey numbers are put
together, the frontage would be more than 35m. A perusal of the notification
issued by the respondents would clearly reveal that if an applicant wants to
consider his application under Group-I, either he should be the owner or his
family members should be the owner. Only if the petitioner has applied under
Group-II, the land owned by the third party could be included to fulfil the
condition of 35m.frontage. In the present case, the petitioner having applied
under Group-I category, cannot rely upon the affidavit of a third party under
Appendix-III for Survey No.107/2 to achieve the frontage of 35m. It is the
contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that when no other
applicant is available, his application could be considered at least under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
Group-II, if not under Group-I.
12.The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering a similar situation in
a judgment reported in 2025 INSC 426 in Paragraph Nos.15 & 18 has held as
follows:
“15. As reproduced above, Clause (k) of the advertisement
provides that each applicant has to declare the category under
which the land they have offered for the purpose of retail outlet
dealership, falls. In doing so, a letter issued by an advocate giving
details of current ownership and the documents relied upon to prove
the same, also has to be furnished. Further, we find that Clause (d)
also lists various documents that the applicant should be in
possession of, on the date of the application, serving as proof of
ownership of the land. It is clear from the above two requirements
that mentioning the incorrect group in the application form is not an
exercise in simpliciter and requires the presence/furnishing of
various documents. The respondents’ application under Group 2
cannot be a mere error of filling up the form incorrectly, for along
with the form documents establishing ownership of land, in case the
application is by a person falling under Group 1. The respondent
was fully aware of her limitation and, as such, took a chance by
filling up the wrong category.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that the
High Court fell in error directing, as it did, for the respondent’s
application to be considered not in the Group in which it was filed
but in another one. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the
judgment and order of the High Court with particulars as described
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
in paragraph one is set aside. The appellant shall proceed with the
allotment process/formalities in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations.”
13.In view of the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
it is clear that the application of the petitioner can be considered only under
the Group for which it has been applied and not under the another Group. In
such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
writ petitioner cannot be countenanced that he should be considered at least
under Group-II even though he had applied under Group-I.
(D).Conclusion:
14.In view of the above said deliberations, the order impugned in the
writ petition does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and does not
warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. There are no merits in the
writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.01.2026
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
To
The Section Officer
V.R.Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
msa
Pre-delivery order made in
and WMP(MD).Nos.12104, 12106 and 12108 of 2024
19.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/01/2026 03:09:00 pm )
