Dismissed

M/S.Golden Enterprise, v. the District Collector

Madras HC23 Oct 2017WP/27347/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the allotment of kerosene distributorship to other dealers in Perambalur District under Article 226. The Court held that dealership disputes are contractual and require impleadment of the Corporation, which was not a party, and thus the writ was not maintainable despite Service Accounting considerations.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no costs; writ not maintainable as dealings are contractual and require impleadment of the Corporation.

M/S.Golden Enterprise, Vs the District… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.10.2017

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

W.P.No.27347 of 2004

¶6

M/s.Golden Enterprise, Represented by its Sole Proprietor, Mr.T.Ganesh Carrying on business at 171/19, A.Vilamathur Road, Perambalur 621 212. ... Petitioner

¶7

[Petitioner is amended as per the order of this Court dated 04.10.2017 in W.M.P.No.27152 of

¶8

2017 in W.P.No.27347 of 2004]

¶9

¶10

1.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶11

2.The District Supply Officer, Collectrate, Perambalur District.

¶12

3.M/s.Safiullah & Co. Indian Oil Corporation Limited Wholesale Kerosene Dealer, Ariyalur, Perambalur District.

¶13

4.Jayam Oil Agency, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Wholesale Kerosene Dealer, Jeyamkondam Taluk, Perambalur District.

¶14

5.G.R.Ramasamy Naidu & Sons, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Wholesale Kerosene Dealer, Ariyalur Taluk, Perambalur District.

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

[R3 is amended as per the order of this Court dated 04.10.2017 in W.M.P.No.27152 of 2017 in W.P.No.27347 of 2004]

¶17

Prayer : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from allotting kerosene for Vepanthattai Taluk and Kunnam Taluk to the 3rd to 5th

¶18

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

¶19

respondent except to the petitioners so as to maintain the allotment of kerosene to an extent of 216 K.L. per month to the petitioner for three Taluks.

¶20

For Petitioner : M/s.K.Raja For RR1 & 2 : Mr.S.Diwakar, Special Government Pleader

¶21

For RR3 to 5 : M.Bhaskar

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition forbearing the 1st and 2nd respondents from allotting kerosene for Vepanthattai Taluk and Kunnam Taluk to the 3rd to 5th respondents except to the petitioners so as to maintain the allotment of kerosene to an extent of 216 K.L. per month to the petitioner for three Taluks.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the 1st and 2nd respondents should not allot the distributorship of kerosene to the respondents 3 to 5 and the same should be allotted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as wholesale kerosene dealer for Perambalur Taluk and Thuraiyur Taluk in composite Trichy District by the Indian Oil Corporation. Thereafter, in the year 1995, it was trifurcated as Trichy, Perambalur and Karur District and in the year 1996, the Perambalur District was further trifurcated.Since the petitioner being the dealer as per the dealership agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation for Perambalur Taluk, he has valid distributorship to operate in the 3 trifurcated Taluks of Perambalur Taluk and that the 1st and 2nd respondents should allot kerosene only to the recognised wholesale kerosene dealer, who are having operation in a particular area and beyond the area of operation, they should not allot kerosene to the wholesale kerosene dealers. It is stated that the petitioner was the dealer up to 2004 and he was distributing to the 3 Taluks and now because of trifurcation, allotment has been reduced to 192 K.L. from 216 K.L.

¶24

According to the petitioner, detailed objections has been given by way of representation and that the act of the Corporation in trying to curtail the dealership, i.e., to reduce the Kilo Litres of kerosene would run counter to the dealership agreement and thereby restrain the 1st and 2nd respondents from allotting kerosene in Vepanthattai and Kunnam Taluk to the 3rd to 5th respondents and the same should be given to the petitioner, so as to maintain the allotment of kerosene to 216 K.L. per month.

¶25

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

¶26

The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has filed counter. No counter has been filed by the contesting respondents 3 to 5. Mr.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 5 produced communication dated 14.02.2013, wherein it has been stated that the dealership has been alloted to them and there is an agreement between the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the respondents 3 to 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. is not made as a party and the dispute with regard to the allotment can be made before the Civil Forum and the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶27

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was originally appointed as wholesale kerosene dealer in composite Trichy District, which was trifurcated initially in 1995 as Trichy, Perambalur and Karur District and subsequently, Perambalur District has been trifurcated in 1996, where the petitioner should be a dealer and the respondents 3 to 5 should be a dealer as a prerogative of the interest of Perambalur District. The writ petitioner cannot attack the dealership alloted to the respondents 3 to 5, which is a contractual relationship between the Corporation and the parties. In the writ petition, even assuming that it can be done, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has got to be made as a party. Admittedly, they are not before this Court. The petitioner stated that he is now willing to make Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., as a party. As the matter is pending from 2004, at this point of time, permitting the petitioner to implead the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. cannot be accepted.

¶28

The learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5 submitted that though contractual obligation which can at the most be construed as civil wrong, writ is not maintainable and only civil remedy is available. The said contention of the respondents 3 to 5 is correct, but however, if there is any statutory violation, the writ is maintainable against Corporation, as it is "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of Constitution of India.

¶29

There are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CS V)

¶32

//True Copy//

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

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

¶35

pvs

¶36

¶37

1.The District Collector, Perambalur District, Perambalur.

¶38

2.The District Supply Officer, Collectrate, Perambalur District.

¶39

+1cc to Mr.M.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No.74467
+1cc to Mr.K.Raja, Advocate, S.R.No.74495
+1cc to the Government Pleader, S.R.No.75315
W.P.No.27347 of 2004
SKV(CO)
CA(22/11/2017)

¶40

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

M/S.Golden Enterprise, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Golden Enterprise, v. the District Collector

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

Dr.Chandra Ananthasayanam, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sathya Nagar Welfare Vs Corporation of Chennai

D.Venkatesan Vs The commissioner

B.Thirulochana Kumari Vs The Commissioner

S.K.Haribabu Vs the Assistant Director of

R.Purushothaman Vs the Asst.Commissioner