Disposed

The Divisional Engineer, v. Gunanithi

Madras HC17 Dec 2020WA(MD)/1136/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Madurai Bench, upheld the Single Judge's order in W.A(MD)No.1136 of 2020, which dismissed the writ appeal but directed the appellant to refund the security deposit to the respondent. The court treated the respondent's status as a legal heir of a Freedom Fighter as a special case.

What did the court decide?

Affirmed the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition but directing the refund of security deposit to the respondent as a special case.

The Divisional Engineer, Vs Gunanithi — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

W.A(MD)No.1136 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 17.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

W.A(MD)No.1136 of 2020 and C.M.P(MD)No.6224 of 2020

¶8

Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Trichy Divisional Office, Triveni 3^rd Floor, B-35, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy – 620 018.

¶9

... Appellant/3^rd respondent Vs.

¶10

1.Gunanithi 2.The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation, G-9, Indian Oil Bhavan, Aliyavar Jung Marg, Banra East, Mumbai – 400 0051

¶11

..1^st Respondent/Petitioner

¶12

3.The Executive Engineer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil Bhavan, No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034. ..2^nd & 3^rd respondents/ 1^st and 2^nd respondents

¶13

PRAYER: The Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patents, to set aside the judgment and order, dated 12.08.2020 in W.P(MD) No.9028 of 2020 passed by this Court by allowing this Writ Appeal insofar as directing to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.40,000/- and dismiss the Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.9028 of 2020 in entirety.

¶14

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

¶15

1/3

¶16

W.A(MD)No.1136 of 2020

¶17

Prayer in WP(MD). 9028/ 2020 :

¶18

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court To issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned order dt. 16.03.2020 and consequential order dt. 08.05.2020 under Ref. 4105/DS passed by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and further directing the respondents to issue Letter of Intdent to the petitioner by declaring her as selected for Retail outlet dealership at Ammankurichi Location, Pudukottai District under Freedom Fighter Quota (Open CC 2).

¶19

For Appellant :Mr.K.Muraleedharan

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

******************

¶22

[ Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.KIRUBAKARAN, J. ]

¶23

This writ appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the learned Single Judge by which, the prayer sought for by the 1^st respondent was dismissed. However a direction was issued to the appellant to refund the security amount of Rs.40,000/- [Rupees Forty Thousand Only], which was deposited by the 1^st respondent.

¶24

2.It is seen that the 1^st respondent has applied for a petroleum retail outlet under Freedom Fighters Category and she was also called upon to pay the security deposit for field verification and accordingly, she also paid the said security deposit. But on field verification, it was found that she was not eligible for being allotted the retail outlet under the Freedom Fighters Category and her application was rejected by order, dated 08.05.2020. This order was challenged in the writ Petition.

¶25

3.The learned Single Judge, though accepted the case of the appellant that the 1^st respondent is not entitled to be allotted with the retail outlet, directed the appellant to refund the security deposit made by the 1^st respondent by treating as a special case.

¶26

4.The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that if refund is ordered, then there will be claims for refund of security deposit by the non-selected candidates.

¶27

5.Though this Court accepts the contention of the appellant, considering the fact that the 1^st respondent is a legal heir of a Freedom Fighter, directs the appellant to refund the security deposit to 1^st respondent forthwith as directed by the learned Single Judge, by considering the 1^st respondent as special case. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. However, we make it clear that this judgment is passed considering the peculiar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶28

2/3

¶29

W.A(MD)No.1136 of 2020

¶30

facts and circumstances of this case and this cannot be taken as a precedent in any other case.

¶31

6.In view of the above, this writ appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar (RTI)

¶33

// True Copy //

¶34

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶35

dsk To 1.The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation, G-9, Indian Oil Bhavan, Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 0051 2.The Executive Engineer, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Indian Oil Bhavan, No.139, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

¶36

W.A(MD)No.1136 of 2020 17.12.2020

¶37

ARK (CO) NR (30/12/2020) 3P : 3C

¶38

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

¶39

3/3

The Divisional Engineer, v. Gunanithi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Engineer, v. Gunanithi

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

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs K.Murugan

C.Christopher Selvadoss, Vs the Director

M. Seyalmurugan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

The Secretary, Vs West Tirunelveli Higher Secondary School

M.Subash Babu Vs the Superintending Engineer

R. Sakkarai Mohamed Vs State of Tamil Nadu