Dismissed

C.Ravichandran, v. the Deputy General Manager &

Madras HC16 Apr 2013WP(MD)/2691/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench dismissed a Writ Petition seeking a Mandamus to permit the petitioner to establish a petrol outlet, holding that the petitioner failed to establish possession of the specified land due to pending partition suits and lack of clear boundaries.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's application to establish a petrol outlet in the disputed property was rejected due to lack of possession and pending partition litigation.

C.Ravichandran, Vs the Deputy General Manager & — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.04.2013

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.2691 of 2013

¶6

C.Ravichandran : Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.The Deputy General Manager and Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Tamil Nadu State Office, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 34. 2.The Senior Divisional Retail Manager, Trichy Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation, B-35, Triveni third floor, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy 18. 3.S.Vellaichamy : Respondents

¶9

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to establish and run the Kissan Seva Kendra Retailship Unit in S.F.No.323/6-B, measuring 31 cents of Palakuruchi Village, Trichy District.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian For Respondent 1 : No Appearance For Respondent 2 : Mr.R.Sundar For Respondent 3 : Mr.M.Subash Babu

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the Indian Oil Corporation to permit him to establish a petrol outlet in his property in S.F.No.323/6-B, measuring an extent of 36 cents Palakuruchi Village, Trichy District.

¶13

The petitioner has shown S.F.No.323/6-B, measuring an extent of 36 cents Palakuruchi Village, Trichy District as the land, in which he would establish the petrol outlet. Since there was a suit pending for partition https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in O.S.No.291 of 2005, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy, in respect of the said land, the Corporation failed to take further action. This made the petitioner to file Writ Petition.

¶14

The petitioner made an application to establish a petrol outlet. The petitioner in his application claimed that he is in possession and

¶15

¶16

enjoyment of the required land in S.F.No.326/6. The application submitted by the petitioner was processed on the basis of the said claim. Subsequently, it was made out that the petitioner was not in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the third respondent is also a coowner. The Corporation was justified in not permitting the petitioner to establish the petrol outlet.

¶17

There is nothing on record to show that a final decree has already been passed and the petitioner was given a particular extent of property with clear boundaries. Unless and until the petitioner is in a position to show that he is in possession of a specified extent, it cannot be stated that he is in possession of the land fit for construction of retail outlet. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for by him in this Writ Petition.

¶18

In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Deputy Registrar

Assistant Registrar

1.The Deputy General Manager and Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Tamil Nadu State Office, 139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 34.

¶23

2.The Senior Divisional Retail Manager, Trichy Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation, B-35, Triveni third floor, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy 18.

¶24

+1cc to MR.P.Ganapathi Subramanian Advocate SR.No.21256.

¶25

+1cc to MR. R.Sundar Advocate SR.No.21476. +1cc to MR. M.Subash babu Advocate SR.No. 21280. nb

¶26

TS/09.05.2013/2P-6C

¶27

ORDER MADE IN

¶28

W.P.(MD)No.2691 of 2013

¶29

16.04.2013

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

C.Ravichandran, v. the Deputy General Manager &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Ravichandran, v. the Deputy General Manager &

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Chellaswamy, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

J.G. Narmatha, Vs the District Collector

S. Arunachalam, S/O.Samy Nadar Vs the District Collector

S. Ganapathy, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Devi Corporation,a Partnership Vs the Superintendent of Police

V. Ponnazhagu, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer