Dismissed

K. Murali Kannishvaran v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Madras HC3 Oct 2016WA(MD)/820/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal challenging the allotment of an LPG Distributorship, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court rejected the appellant's plea for a personal hearing and the claim regarding experience marks. Finding no error in the lower court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal filed to quash the allotment of LPG Distributorship to the fourth respondent was dismissed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.

K. Murali Kannishvaran Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation — Property and Title | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.10.2016

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

W.A.(MD).No.820 of 2013

¶7

and

¶8

M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013

¶9

K.Murali Kannishvaran : Appellant

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its the Regional LPG Manager (South), No.1, Ranganthan Garders, Off 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, P.Bag No.1212 & 1213, Chennai-40.

¶12

2.The Territorial Manager LPG (South), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madurai By-pass Road, Tuticorin.

¶13

3.Dealer Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madurai By-pass Road, Tuticorin. 4.K.Sampath : Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 16.10.2012, made in W.P.(MD).No.14458 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

¶15

Prayer in WP(MD). 14458/ 2011 :

¶16

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of await of Declaration, declaring the selection of the 4th respondent herein ranked as Candidated No.1 for the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Theni Allinagaram, Theni District as Arbitary, illegal, unjust and unsustainable in law and consequently declare the petitioner as Candidate No.1 for the LPG Distributorship at Theni Allinagaram https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and direct the respondent to grant distributorshiip in favour of the petitioner.

¶17

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel Rajan For Respondents 1to3 : Mr.Natesh Raja For Respondent No.4 : Mr.M.Ajmalkhan for

¶19

K.Appadurai

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

[Judgment of the Court was made by

¶22

The Hon'ble The Chief Justice]

¶23

The appellant seeks to assail the allotment of LPG Distributorship at Theni Allinagaram to the fourth respondent by the first respondent/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The learned Single Judge, in terms of the impugned order dated 16.10.2012, rejected the plea of the appellant.

¶24

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the appellant had made a representation, within the stipulated time on publication of the result, whereby the appellant was awarded 94.33 marks as against the fourth respondent marks of 95.83. The representation referred to the award of marks in the interview under column "personality/business ability and experience" and vide order dated 05.12.2011, this representation was dismissed, as it was found that such evaluation is done by a three Member Committee, based on interaction during personal interview and marks are awarded based on response to specific situation related queries/questions.

¶25

Before the learned Single Judge, the grievance made was that pursuant to the representation, the appellant was not given a personal hearing. This plea was rejected on the ground that the Dealer Selection Committee had done comparative merit evaluation and at the stage of representation, there would be no need of personal hearing.

¶26

Now, before us, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to raise another issue i.e., in the category of experience, the appellant was granted two marks, while the fourth respondent was granted 3.33 marks. It is the plea of the appellant that the experience marks had to be marked out of two marks and not four marks.

¶27

Firstly, this plea is not recorded in the impugned order and if it has been so urged, and not considered, then, the appellant ought to have moved the learned Single Judge. Secondly, both the appellant and the fourth respondent have been marked out of four marks uniformly. Thirdly, if the differential marks is seen, it is 1.33, while the total mark differential is still 1.5. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus, in any circumstance, the appellant would not cross the total marks of the fourth respondent.

¶28

¶29

We are informed that the fourth respondent has started functioning in the year 2013 itself and thus, the dealership has been on for the last three years by now.

¶30

Thus, we are not inclined to interfere in the appeal. Writ Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(P&A) /True copy/

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

¶33

1.The Regional LPG Manager (South), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., No.1, Ranganthan Garders, Off 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, P.Bag No.1212 & 1213, Chennai-40.

¶34

2.The Territorial Manager LPG (South), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madurai By-pass Road, Tuticorin.

¶35

3.Dealer Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Madurai By-pass Road, Tuticorin.

¶36

+1cc to K.Appadurai, Advocate SR.No.58035 +1cc to Mr.K.P.S.Palanivel rajan, Advocate SR.No.58180

¶37

sm:sk-skn:14/10/2016:3P/6C

¶38

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A.(MD).No.820 of 2013 Dated: 03.10.2016

¶39

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

K. Murali Kannishvaran v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Murali Kannishvaran v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Selvakumar Vs Ashok Kumar, IPS

A.Paranjothi Vs Dr.B.Channra Mohan, IAS

Joseph Tharamsekaran Vs the Management of Papanasam

G. Poongavanam Vs the Director Incharge

T.Murugan, Vs the District Collector

M.K. Muzibur Rahman, Vs Union of India