In a writ appeal regarding the allotment of an LPG distributorship, the Court held the appeal infructuous because the distributorship had already been allotted to other respondents based on subsequent fresh advertisements, rendering no further adjudication possible.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed as infructuous with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.11.2019
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.A.NO.2480 OF 2012
Seeniammal W/o.M.Manoharan .. Appellant/Petitioner Vs. 1.The Chairman Oil Selection Board Indian Oil Board 19, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras - 34. 2.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Thalamuthu Natarajan Building Egmore, Madras. 3.The Union of India Department of Petroleum New Delhi. 4.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Jamshedi Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020. 5.M/s.Jeyanthi Gas Agency H.P.LPG (d) Tower Street, Srivilliputhur, Virudunagar District - 626 125. Now at Branch Office at Opp. Head Post Office Municipal Road, Sivakashi and Branch Office at Rajapalayam. 6.M/s.Gokulam Agency Represented by its Proprietor Convent Complex Srivilliputhur, Virudunagar District. .. Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent against the orders passed in W.P.No.3392 of 2005 dated 06.07.2012.
Prayer in WP.No.3392 of 2005:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus or directing the respondents 1 to 4 to allot the distributorship of Liquefied Petroleum. Gas L.P.G.(D) for Srivilliputtur to the petitioner, in accordance with the eligibility and suitability and in accordance with their advertisement as published in The Hindu, dated: 24.09.1984.
The learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 4 Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, submits that the present appeal has become infructuous as the Distributorship of the Gas Agency of the Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) has been made in favour of the fifth respondent long ago and thereafter, fresh allotment was also made in favour of the sixth respondent M/s.Gokulam Agency, whereas, the present appellant Ms.Seeniammal sought allotment of such Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG) distributorship, in view of the advertisement published wayback on 24.09.1984.
Sub Assistant Registrar
TK
To 1.The Chairman Oil Selection Board Indian Oil Board 19, Nungambakkam High Road, Madras - 34. 2.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Thalamuthu Natarajan Building Egmore Madras. 3.The Union of India Department of Petroleum New Delhi. 4.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Jamshedi Tata Road, Mumbai - 400 020. +1cc to Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate, SR.No.96802. +1cc to Mr.V.Raghavachari, Advocate, SR.No.96355. +1cc to Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, Advocate, SR.No.96289. W.A.NO.2480 OF 2012 PVS(CO) CSR: 28/01/2020
Seeniammal W/o.M.Manoharan
The Chairman Oil Selection Board Indian Oil Board
The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
The Union of India
M/s.Jeyanthi Gas Agency
M/s.Gokulam Agency
Vineet Kothari
C. Saravanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
