Allowed

Kaayceeyen Enterprises, v. the Union of India

Madras HC22 Jul 2021WP/1052/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court dismissed two writ petitions regarding the allotment of LPG distributorships. Petitioners sought to quash advertisements for new dealerships. The court held the matter was res integra following earlier judgments dismissing similar petitions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' appeals against previous dismissal of petitions were allowed, though the underlying writ petitions remain dismissed.

Kaayceeyen Enterprises, Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.07.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

¶6

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011
and
M.P.Nos.1,1,2 & 2 of 2011
Kaayceeyen Enterprises
Rep. by its Partner Mr.K.Natarajan
Carrying on business
at No.72, Illuppur Road,
Kallukudi,
Trichy- 600 020. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1052 of 2011
Karumari Amman Kerosene Depot
Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.V.Jayakumar,
Carrying on business
at No.42, Padmanabha Nagar Main Road,
Padmanabha Nagar,
Choolaiedu,
Chennai - 600 094. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.1053 of 2011
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Ministry of Petroleum
and Natural gas
Sasthri Bhavan,
New Delhi.

¶7

1/5

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

¶10

The Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corporation, G-9, Ali Yuavar Jung Marg, Bandara East, Mumbai - 400 051.

¶11

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, 17, Jamshed Ji Tatta Road, Mumbai - 400 020.

¶12

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Scope Complex, New Delhi - 110 003.

¶13

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat bavan, No.4 & 6, currim bhoy road, Ballard estate, P.B.No.688, Mumbai - 1.

¶14

The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Food, Civil, Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶15

The Commissioner for Civil Supplies, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. .. Respondents in both WPs.

¶16

Prayer in W.P.No.1052 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned advertisement published in the Hindu Newspaper dated 15.06.2010 by the 2nd to 5th respondents for

¶17

2/5

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

¶20

appointment of LPG distributors in Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st to 5th respondents herein to allot LPG distributorship in Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District or in any location in Tamil Nadu to the petitioner.

¶21

Prayer in W.P.No.1053 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the impugned advertisement published in the Hindu Newspaper dated 15.06.2010 by the 2nd to 5th respondents for appointment of LPG distributors in Vyasarpadi, Chennai District and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st to 5th respondents herein to allot LPG distributorship in Vyasarpadi, Chennai District or in any location in Tamil Nadu to the petitioner.

¶22

For petitioners in both WPs. : Mr.K.Raja For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.A.V.Partners For Respondent Nos.3 & 5 : Mr.O.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent No.4 : Died For Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : Mr.Krishnaraja Government Advocate COMMON ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the advertisement published in the Hindu Newspaper dated 15.06.2010 by the 2nd to 5th respondents, quash the same and for consequential direction.

¶24

3/5

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

¶27

2.Today, when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that the issue involved herein is no longer res integra. Earlier, this Court by order dated 30.6.2016 in W.P.Nos.35322 to 35326 of 2013, 9056 & 9057 of 2014,3121 & 29110 of 2015 and W.P.(MD) Nos.17218 to 17223 of 2013 in the case of (Sri Ram Agencies, HPCL Dealer, represented by its Proprietor S.Gajendran Vs. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and others ) has dismissed those writ petitions which was affirmed by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.898, 1278, 1279, 1285, 1286, 1302, 1352 to 1354 of 2016 and 49 & 51 of 2017 (M/s.Joseph Trading Corporation,IOCL Dealer, rep.by its Partner

¶28

P.Sathyanathan Vs. The Union of India, rep.by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas and others).

¶29

3.Thus, following the aforesaid decisions, the present writ petitions also stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶30

22.07.2021

¶31

4/5

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

msr

R.MAHADEVAN, J.

msr

The Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural gas Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Director (Marketing) Indian Oil Corporation, G-9, Ali Yuavar Jung Marg, Bandara East, Mumbai - 400 051. 3. Chairman & Mananging Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 17, Jamshed Ji Tatta Road, Mumbai - 400 020. 4. Chairman & Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Scope Complex, New Delhi - 110 003. 5. Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Bharat bavan, No.4 & 6, currim bhoy road, Ballard estate, P.B.No.688, Mumbai - 1. 6. The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Protection Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort. St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 7. The Commissioner for Civil Supplies, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.

¶39

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

¶40

22.07.2021

¶41

5/5

¶42

http://www.judis.nic.in

Kaayceeyen Enterprises, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaayceeyen Enterprises, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.O.K.Metals & Alloys Vs Steel Authority of India

G.Govindan, Vs The District Revenue Officer

Gopichand Idandas Vs The Reserve Bank of India

M.Velmurugan, Vs The Chairperson

D.Panneerselvam Vs The District Collector

M.M.Sunil Dath, Vs The General Manager