Disposed

D.Senthilkumar, v. Chief General Manager

Madras HC10 Mar 2022WP/24480/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, a petitioner challenged the rejection of his site for an Indian Oil retail outlet due to it being on a State Highway instead of a village road. The court directed the petitioner to produce the lease agreement for the alternate site and ordered the respondent to consider it within a specified timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to produce lease agreement for alternate site; respondent directed to consider said site and pass orders within four weeks.

D.Senthilkumar, Vs Chief General Manager — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10.03.2022

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN

¶5

W.P. No.24480 of 2018

¶6

D. Senthilkumar … Petitioner

¶7

¶8

Chief General manager, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., House of Four Frames, No.6/13, Wheatcrofts Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

¶9

The Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Salem Divisional Office, No.234, 1st floor, NH-7, Salem - Bangalore Bypass Road, Kondalampatti, Salem 636 010. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondentls to issue the letter of appointment to the petitioner for setting up of new KSK retail outlet dealership of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limitd at Andiyur Village nad Post, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District by making suitable amendments in the advertisement dated 16.10.2014 issued for setting up the new KSK RO Dealership in Village area to include Andiyur Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, even though it comes under State Highway (SH-18A) in respect of which the petitioner is willing to fulfill all required conditions.

¶11

For petitioner ...Mr. M. Malar

¶12

For respondents ...Mr. Mohammed Fayaz Ali, for R1 ...No Appearance- R2

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue the letter of appointment to the petitioner for setting up of new retail outlet of M/s.Indian Oil Corporation Limited at Andiyur Village by making suitable amendments in the advertisement dated 16.10.2014 .

¶16

According to the petitioner, the respondents / Indian Oil Corporation called for application for providing retail outlet dealership projects under the Kisan Seva Kendra Dealership shop (KSK). Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has sent the application and after scrutinizing the same, the Letter of Intent has been issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, on inspection of the site, the respondent/Corporation found that the site offered by the petitioner is located in a State Highway and as per the scheme, the retail outlet should be located in a village or District roads. In the above circumstances, the petitioner was directed to offer alternate site. Thereafter, the petitioner offered alternate site in some other survey No.36/1C in Andiyur Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. But, so far, the Corporation did not consider the alternate site offered by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court with the present writ petition.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Corporation submitted that under the KSK scheme, the retail outlet is to be maintained in a village or any District Road, where as , the land offered by the petitioner is located on the State Highway. Hence, the respondent/Corporation could not accept the site. Therefore, the respondent/Corporation requested the petitioner to offer an alternate site. But, without providing any alternate site, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the direction to amend the notification suitably and thereafter give a licence to him, which is not permissible.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that at request made by the respondent/Corporation, the petitioner entered into a lease agreement with the third party, which comes under the rural area and submitted the same to the respondent. However, the same was not considered.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/Corporation stoutly disputed the same stating that

¶20

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

¶21

they have not received any agreement from the petitioner regarding the alternate site, so far.

¶22

Considering the above submissions, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to produce the lease agreement with regard to the alternate site before the 2nd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the 2nd respondent is directed to consider the alternate site offered by the petitioner and pass suitable orders either accepting the same or rejecting it, after hearing the petitioner , within a period of four weeks thereafter,.

¶23

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

¶24

SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶25

// TRUE COPY //

¶26

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶27

mrp

¶28

¶29

Chief General manager, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., House of Four Frames, No.6/13, Wheatcrofts Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. 2. The Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Salem Divisional Office, No.234, 1st floor, NH-7, Salem - Bangalore Bypass Road, Kondalampatti, Salem 636 010. +1cc to Mr.M.Malar, Advocate Sr.16383

¶30

W.P. No.24480 of 2018

¶31

kk[co] srg 06/04/2022

¶32

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

D.Senthilkumar, v. Chief General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Senthilkumar, v. Chief General Manager

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

R.Dorairaj, Vs The Branch Manager

M/s. Uma Shankar Traders, Vs Reserve Bank Of India

Dr.S.Peter, Chairman, Madha Vs The Zonal Manager / Regional

Lions Club of Arni Vs The Tahsildar

C.P.Abdul Kareem Vs The District Collector

Chennai Vendors Association, Vs Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.