Allowed

M.Malathi, v. Bharat Pertroleum Coporation

Madras HC6 Apr 2018WP/8092/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached the Madras High Court seeking to quash the rejection of her LPG distributorship application. The Court examined conflicting location details regarding applicant's land versus advertisement requirements, verified via Tahsildar certificates, allowing the writ with a direction to reconsider the case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.3.2018 set aside; direction issued to respondent to reconsider petitioner's application on merits based on Tahsildar certificates; liberty granted to produce additional documen

M.Malathi, Vs Bharat Pertroleum Coporation — Landlord and Tenant | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 06.04.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶5

W.P.No.8092 of 2018 and

¶6

WMP.Nos.10055 to 10057 of 2018

M.Malathi

.. Petitioner

-vs-

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited rep. by its Co-ordinator, State Office/LPG, No.1, 11^th Main Road, Ranganathan Gardens, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40.

¶11

The Territory Manager-LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Coimbatore LPG Plant, Post Box No.1644, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004.

¶12

The Sales Officer-LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 16, Sandaipet Main Road, Annathanapatti, Salem-636 002. ..Respondents

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2^nd respondent pertaining to Proceedings vide CBE:LPG: SUNCHALNATHAM: GV (OBC-W) dated 23.3.2018 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to accept the land offered by the petitioner measuring 35 cents in Survey No.525/3 of Sunjalnatham Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District and issue indent awarding LPG Distributorship in favour of the petitioner for the Sunjalnatham Location, Sunjalnatham Village Panchayat, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, under the Gramin Vitrak Distributorship in OBC (W) Category.

¶14

For Petitioner :: Mr.G.Arul Murugan

¶15

For Respondents:: Mr.M.Vijayan

¶16

for M/s.King and Partridge

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 23.3.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent, namely, the Territory Manager-LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

Coimbatore LPG Plant and to quash the same with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to accept the land offered by the petitioner measuring 35 cents in Survey No.525/3 of Sunjalnatham Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District and issue indent awarding LPG Distributorship in favour of the petitioner for the Sunjalnatham Location, Sunjalnatham Village Panchayat, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District, under the Gramin Vitrak Distributorship in OBC (W) Category.

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the 1^st respondent issued Paper Advertisement on 20.8.2017 calling for applications for appointment of the LPG Distributorship for Sunjalnatham in Sunjalnatham Village Panchayat, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District under the category of 'OBC (W)', the petitioner applied for the same on 23.9.2017. Further, the petitioner was successfully selected for appointment of dealership for the Sunjalnathan location. As per the requirements of the advertisement, the petitioner had offered an extent of 35 Cents of land in Survey Number 525/3 of Sunjalnatham Village, Pennagaram Taluk, Dharmapuri District for the purpose of constructing LPG Godown and Gas Showroom through Lease Deed dated 18.9.2017 registered as Document No.2812 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Pennagaram and the petitioner has submitted all the required documents as advertised. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent came for verification of the location and raised the issue as to why the name Eriyur, Sunjalnatham is mentioned in many places and also in her Aadhar Card. The petitioner explained to them that it is only Sunjalnatham Village and the town is called as Eriyur, which is a hamlet/Sub village and part of Sunjalnatham Village. But, without appreciating the explanation offered by the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent has proceeded as though the land comprised in the Lease Deed received from her father-in-law is different from the advertised location and rejected the case of the petitioner in the impugned order.

¶21

On explaining further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the address of the land covered in the Lease Deed No.2822 of 2017 is in Eriyur Village which is the part of the Sunjalnatham Revenue Village and to that effect, the petitioner has also obtained a Certificate from the Tahsildar, Pennagaram Taluk dated 6.2.2018 in which it has been clarified that the Sunjalnatham is the name of the Revenue Village in Pennagaram Taluk and the said Sunjalnatham Revenue Village contains 11 sub-villages like Eriyur. But, the 2^nd respondent has rejected the petitioner's candidature by proceedings dated 23.3.2018. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

¶22

Mr.M.Vijayan, learned Counsel for M/s.King and Partridge, learned Counsel for the respondents, at this stage, fairly submitted that an opportunity may be given to the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Pennagaram Taluk. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶23

A perusal of the Certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Pennagaram Taluk dated 6.2.2018 and 5.3.2018, clearly show that the land possessed by the petitioner for establishing LPG Showroom appears to have situated within the advertised location. Therefore, the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent dated 23.3.2018 is hereby set aside and the 2^nd respondent is directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the Certificates issued by the Tahsildar, Pennagaram Taluk.

¶24

With the above observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands allowed with liberty to the petitioner to produce any other documents, if any possessed by him to substantiate her claim. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.

¶25

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
To
1. Co-ordinator, State Office/LPG,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
No.1, 11 th Main Road, Ranganathan Gardens,
Anna Nagar West, Chennai-40.

¶26

The Territory Manager-LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Coimbatore LPG Plant, Post Box No.1644, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641 004. 3. The Sales Officer-LPG, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 16, Sandaipet Main Road, Annathanapatti, Salem-636 002.

¶27

- 1 cc to M/s.m King & Patridge, Advocate Sr.25775

¶28

- 1 cc to Mr. G. Arulmurugan, Advocate Sr.25703

¶29

KK(CO) EU(20/04/2018 )

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.No.8092 of 2018

M.Malathi, v. Bharat Pertroleum Coporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Malathi, v. Bharat Pertroleum Coporation

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

V.Selvam Vs The Inspector of Police

C.R.Arul Anand, Vs The Superintendent of Police

Tamil Nadu Government Office Vs The Inspector General of

M.Jeyapal Vs The Inspector of Police

K.K.Rajasirpy, Membership Vs The Deputy Registrar of

K.Muthusamy, Vs The Inspector of Police