Dismissed

S.Shylaja v. the Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Madras HC8 Jul 2020WA/480/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. appealed against the Single Judge's order denying LPG dealership to S.Shylaja. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that a circular benefiting Indian Oil Corporation did not apply to Bharat Petroleum and its omission in the advertisement violated Article 14 if applied retrospectively.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was dismissed. C.M.P.No.7254 of 2020 is closed.

S.Shylaja Vs the Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:08.07.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.A.P.SAHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶7

W.A.No.480 of 2020

¶8

S.Shylaja .. Appellant/Petitioner vs. The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep. by its Territory Manager, Chennai LPG Bottling Plant, J1-J6, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, New Gummidipoondi-601 201, Tiruvallur District. .. Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16331 of 2019.

¶9

WP.16331 of 2019: Petition filed U/A 226 of the constitution of India 1950, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 03/06/2019 in Ref. No.BPC 03303014522092017 issued by the respondent quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to appoint the petitioner as the LPG Distributor for the area applied by accepting the land for show room bearing S.No.492/3B1 New Survey No.492/3B1 B as per Patta No.2863 situated at No.59 Ponneri Thiruvallur District and Godown bearing S.No.63/2A New Survey No.63 /2A2 as per Patta No.5837 situated at No.58 Thadaperumpakkam Group Kodur Village Thiruvallur District.

¶10

For Appellant : Mr.P.Krishnan

¶11

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

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(Delivered by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment.

¶15

The learned Single Judge, in a writ petition filed for grant of LPG dealership, came to the conclusion that the appellant offered an alternate land, the lease in respect whereof came to be registered on 12.03.2019, which was beyond the last date of the submission of the application which is 25.09.2017. The learned Single Judge also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court and the judgment of the Apex Court to deny the said benefit.

¶16

Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court contending that the learned Single Judge has not arrived at the correct conclusion, inasmuch as, a concession in this respect is available as per the circular dated 09.06.2016 issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited. It is also urged that such communication was also addressed to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, who is the respondent herein and therefore applying the said circular, the appellant is entitled to get her lease deed considered for grant of the dealership.

¶17

Having considered the submissions raised, we find that the date of advertisement in the present case is 20.08.2017, which is much after the said circular dated 09.06.2016 that is sought to be relied on. The aforesaid communication states that the alternate land, the registration whereof may have taken place after the date of application, should be accepted. This circular of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited may be binding on the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, but the same does not find reference in the advertisement dated 20.08.2017, which was issued later on. Accordingly, we cannot assume that the respondent Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited had issued an advertisement subject to the said circular. The condition of such concession being available not being mentioned in the advertisement, would be unfair as against any other applicant, and if such a benefit is claimed and concession granted would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, it is doubtful as to whether the circular issued by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited would amount to altering the guidelines framed for a grant of dealership by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.

¶18

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

¶19

Thus, for the reasons given by the learned Single Judge and also for the reasons stated herein above, we do not find any substance in the claim of the appellant so as to extend any such benefit as prayed for.

¶20

The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.7254 of 2020 is closed.

¶21

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶22

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bbr
To
The Territory Manager,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Chennai LPG Bottling Plant,
J1-J6, SIPCOT Industrial Complex,
New Gummidipoondi-601 201,
Tiruvallur District.
W.A.No.480 of 2020
VGII(CO)
CB(31/07/2020)

¶23

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

S.Shylaja v. the Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Shylaja v. the Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Manian Vs the Secretary to Govt

Chennai Palkalaikazhaga Asiriyar Peravai Vs University of Madras

M.Swaminathan Vs the Deputy General Manager

A.S.Bilal Vs The Chief Secretary

M.Shalini Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Sivaraman Vs the Sub Registrar