Dismissed

S.Sivasubramanian v. The General Manager (Retail sales)

Madras HC20 Jan 2020WP/924/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the Indian Oil Corporation Limited's decision to favor the first-ranked applicant over the petitioner for a retail dealership. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the petitioner led the queue and assurance was given he would be considered if the first rank was rejected.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Disposition of the petition without specific mandamus as the petitioner is assured consideration.

S.Sivasubramanian Vs The General Manager… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 20.01.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

W.P.No.924 of 2020

S.Sivasubramanian

.. Petitioner

..Vs..

The General Director (Retail Sales), IOCL, G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051.

¶10

The Executive Director,

¶11

IOCL, Indian Oil Bhavan,

¶12

Tamil Nadu Circle Office,

¶13

139, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam,

¶14

Chennai – 600 034.

¶15

The Senior Divisional Retail sales Officer, IOCL, Chennai Division, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018. ..Respondents

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to consider the petitioner's application for issuing the letter of intent and appointment to the petitioner herein for the retail outlet dealership at Unnai Vaniyambadi to Narayanapuram, Anaicut Taluk, Vellore District.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaravadanam

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.Mohamed Fyaz Ali Standing counsel

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The writ petition is straight away disposed of, since the grievance of the petitioner is that he had applied for dealership at Unnai Vaniyambadi Village, Anaicut taluk, Vellore District under the respondents Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

¶21

The petitioner stands in serial number 2 in the list for appointment of Retail Outlet Dealerships list. The person who stands in serial No.1 namely GG Shathshith E Gangadaran had

¶22

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

¶23

given as survey number in his application land abutting the main road. On field verification, it was found that the land in the particular survey number was not abutting the main road. But, in his Sale Deed, there are two other survey numbers along with the survey number already given in the application number, and those lands, abut the road.

¶24

The learned counsel who had taken notice for the respondents states that the respondents are in the process of finalising the dealership and proceeding further with the application of GG Shathshith E Gangadaran treating it as a rectifiable mistake. Statement is made at the bar that if they finally reject the application for any other reason, naturally they would consider the application of the present petitioner.

¶25

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that a mandamus in this regard is not strictly required since it is stated that the respondents would take up the application of the petitioner automatically as he stands in serial no.2 if finally they reject the application of GG Shathshith E Gangadaran.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the reply given to a question raised under Right to Information Act. But it has been clarified by the learned counsel for the respondents that they have taken only interim measures, but they have not finally rejected the application of GG Shathshith E Gangadaran.

¶27

With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-III)

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

vum

¶33

¶34

The General Director (Retail Sales), IOCL, G-9, Ali Yawar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051.

¶35

The Executive Director, IOCL, Indian Oil Bhavan, Tamil Nadu Circle Office, 139, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶36

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

¶37

The Senior Divisional Retail sales Officer, IOCL, Chennai Division, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.

¶38

+1cc to Mr.T.Sundaravadanam, Advocate, S.R.No. 3423

¶39

+1cc to Mr.Mohammed Fayaz, Advocate, S.R.No. 3698

¶40

W.P.No.924 of 2020

¶41

VBA(CO) GN(26/02/2020)

¶42

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

S.Sivasubramanian v. The General Manager (Retail sales)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Sivasubramanian v. The General Manager (Retail sales)

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

S.Sivagami Vs The District Collector

Balasubramaniam Roopa Vs Union of India

Rajive Ravindrapai Vs Union of India

Sakthivelbalakrishnan Vs Union of India

Mahesh Kumar Ramachandran Vs Union of India

Mahesh Kumar Ramachandran Vs Union of India