Disposed

Kanaka, v. The Indian Oil Corporation

Madras HC4 Dec 2017WP/2909/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dealership allotment without challenging the earlier rejection order. Court held present petition cannot be entertained. Directed respondent to furnish impugned order copy, granting liberty to file fresh petition to challenge appointment or rejection.

What did the court decide?

Directed Indian Oil Corporation to furnish copy of order dated 19.11.2016 to petitioner within one week; granted liberty to file separate writ petition.

Kanaka, Vs The Indian Oil Corporation — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.12.2017

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶5

Writ Petition No.2909 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

W.M.P.Nos.2816 and 2817 of 2017

¶8

Kanaka ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The Indian Oil Corporation, Indian Oil Bhavan, rep. By its Executive Director, No.139, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034.

¶11

The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Sale Divisional Office, No.234, 1^st Floor, NH-7, Salem-Bangalore Bye Pass Road, Kondalampatti, Salem – 636 010. 3. K.K.Vivekanandhan

¶12

The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, Namakkal District. (R4 & R5 impleaded as per order dt.04.12.2017 made in W.M.P.No.31190/2017 in W.P.2909/2017 by KRCBJ)

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

Prayer:

¶16

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to the declaration of results dated 21.12.2016 in respect of the K.S.K.Retail Outlet Dealership at Kokkarayanpettai, Namakkal District and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application dated 20.11.2014 on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity to furnish

¶17

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

¶18

the documents required as per the letter dated 26.07.2016 which was not received by the petitioner.

¶19

For Petitioner: Mr.P.Chandrasekar

¶20

For Respondents: Mr.M.Ravindran,

¶21

Senior counsel

¶22

for Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan for R1 and R2

¶23

Mr.L.Chandrakumar

¶24

for Mr.S.Kaithamalaikumaran for R3 Mr.P.Senthilvel,

¶25

Government Advocate for R4 and R5

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The present writ petition is filed with the following relief:

¶28

To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to the declaration of results dated 21.12.2016 in respect of the K.S.K.Retail Outlet Dealership at Kokkarayanpettai, Namakkal District and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application dated 20.11.2014 on merits after providing the petitioner an opportunity to furnish the documents required as per the letter dated 26.07.2016 which was not received by the petitioner.

¶29

Heard Mr.P.Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.M.Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation/respondents 1 and 2, Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and Mr.P.Senthilvel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the 4^th and 5^th respondents.

¶30

It appears that the petitioner herein is aggrieved against the allotment of dealership in favour of the 3^rd respondent by the 1^st respondent Corporation in respect of the subject matter site. It is seen that the petitioner has earlier approached this Court and filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.43500/2016 seeking for a Mandamus directing the Indian Oil Corporation to pass orders on his application dated 20.11.2014 for granting retail outlet dealership in respect of the subject matter site.

¶31

This Court, after noting that already an order was passed on 19.11.2016 rejecting the petitioner's application,

¶32

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

¶33

dismissed the said writ petition, however, by granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said order dated 19.11.2016. Though such an order was passed, the petitioner herein has not chosen to challenge the said order of rejection, however, has chosen to file the present writ petition, only with the above relief, which in effect is seeking to set aside the result published by the Indian Oil Corporation which is nothing but selecting the 3^rd respondent for dealership.

¶34

When already a separate order is passed rejecting the petitioner's application by setting out certain reasons and circumstances and when this Court has specifically observed that the petitioner has to challenge the said order by granting liberty in the earlier writ petition, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition as such, filed with the above relief, cannot be entertained, unless the petitioner chooses to challenge the said order dated 19.11.2016 as well.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till this date a copy of the order dated 19.11.2016 is not furnished to the petitioner.

¶36

The Indian Oil Corporation is directed to furnish a copy of the said order to the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such copy of the order, it is open to the petitioner to file a separate writ petition or any other proceedings in the manner known to law as well as challenging the appointment of the 3^rd respondent. Granting such liberty, this writ petition is disposed of without expressing any view on the contentions raised by both the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶39

//True copy//

¶40

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶41

vsi

¶42

¶43

The District Revenue Officer, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶44

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

¶45

The Superintendent of Police, Namakkal, Namakkal District.

¶46

+1cc to Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan, Advocate SR.No.85588

¶47

+1cc to Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Advocate SR.No.85484

¶48

+1cc to Mr.P.Chandrasekar, Advocate SR.No.86029

¶49

+1cc to Government Pleader SR.No.86396

¶50

W.P. No.2909 of 2017

¶51

SJ(CO) GN(11/12/2017)

¶52

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

Kanaka, v. The Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanaka, v. The Indian Oil 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

S.Komalavalli, Vs The Registrar of Cooperative

A.Nirmala, Vs Under secretary

B.Nandhagopal, Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Sri Sai Recreation Club, Vs The Superintendent of Police

N.Subramani Vs The Inspector General of

B.Sudhakar, Vs The Revenue Divisional