Disposed

S.Prathima v. Union of India

Madras HC17 Apr 2023WP/88/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted a direction during the pendency of a writ petition challenging the allotment of an LPG Distributorship. The Court directed the official respondents to conduct an enquiry into allegations of collusion and non-eligibility within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directive to conduct enquiry within six weeks; LPG distributorship granted to private respondent subject to enquiry result.

S.Prathima Vs Union of India — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.88 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

W.P.No.88 of 2023 And

¶7

W.M.P.No.82 of 2023

S.Prathima

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Union of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.

¶12

2.The Chief General Manager Indian Oil Corporation, Southern Region Office, “Indian Oil Bhavan” 139, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034.

¶13

3.The General Manager, (LPG Sales), Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

4.N.Kuppan

5.N.Swetha

... Respondents

Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

¶19

1/6

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

W.P.No.88 of 2023

¶22

issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of Distributorship agreement dated 29.12.2022 through CHAO. 744 granted by the 2nd and 3rd respondent to the 4th and 5th respondents in the name of M/s.KomalaIndane Gas Agency and quash the same and subsequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to conduct fresh and fair selection on Physically Challenged Open Category for allotment of LPG Distributorship.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Rajagopalan Senior Counsel for M/s.M.Krishnamoorthy

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.K.Ramana Moorthy for R1 Central Government Standing Counsel Mr.Mohammed Fayaz Ali for R2 & R3 Standing Counsel Mr.J.Srinivas Mohan for R4 & R5 for M/s.TVJ Associates

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of

¶27

Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the order of Distributorship agreement dated 29.12.2022 through CHAO. 744 granted by the 2nd and 3rd respondent to the 4th and 5th respondents in the name of M/s.KomalaIndane Gas Agency and quash the same and subsequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondent to conduct fresh

¶28

2/6

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

W.P.No.88 of 2023

¶31

and fair selection on Physically Challenged Open Category for allotment of LPG Distributorship.

¶32

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and she is one of the candidate who applied for LPG Distributorship at Pammal and since there were 11 candidates the selection was made by draw. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that the fourth respondent was selected. The grievance of the petitioner is that the fourth respondent is not the owner of the property and he colluded with the fifth respondent who is the owner of the property and obtained bogus no objection certificate from the Block Development Officer and obtained the LPG Distributorship. In this regard the petitioner made complaint to the second respondent, however, there is no response. Hence, this writ petition.

¶33

3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a physically challenged person, however, without considering her candidature for LPG Distributorship, the official respondents considered the candidature of the fourth respondent who is not a physically challenged person. Further, the

¶34

3/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.88 of 2023

¶37

fourth respondent does not own any property in the vicinity and the fifth respondent alone own property, however, the fourth respondent entered into lease agreement with the fifth respondent and obtained LPG Distributorship, which is not sustainable.

¶38

4.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further

¶39

submitted that the petitioner made complaint as against the fourth respondent, before the second respondent, however, no enquiry was conducted. Hence, this Court may issue direction to the official respondents to conduct enquiry on the allegations made against the fourth respondent and to pass appropriate orders.

¶40

5.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2

¶41

and 3 submitted that enquiry will be conducted and after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents, appropriate orders will be passed.

¶42

6.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5

¶43

raise no serious objection.

¶44

4/6

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.88 of 2023

¶47

7.In view of the fair submission made on either side, this Court

¶48

directs the respondents 2 and 3 to conduct enquiry into the matter in the manner known to law and after providing opportunity to the petitioner as well as the private respondents, conclude the enquiry and pass appropriate orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The LPG Distributorship granted in favour of the private respondent is subject to the result of the enquiry conducted by the respondents 2 and 3.

¶49

8.The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No

¶50

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶51

17.04.2023

¶52

pri

¶53

Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ No

¶54

5/6

¶55

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶56

W.P.No.88 of 2023

¶57

M.DHANDAPANI,J. pri

¶58

¶59

1.Union of India Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi.

¶60

2.The Chief General Manager Indian Oil Corporation, Southern Region Office, “Indian Oil Bhavan” 139, Uthamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034.

¶61

3.The General Manager, (LPG Sales), Indian Oil Corporation, Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, 500, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018.

¶62

W.P.No.88 of 2023 And W.M.P.No.82 of 2023

¶63

17.04.2023

¶64

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶65

6/6

S.Prathima v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Prathima v. Union of India

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.Ravi Vs The Chairman

Jayasri Vs The Chairman

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Vs The Transport Commissioner

Shri Santhosh Meenakshi Textiles P Ltd. Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission

Lord Balaji Educational & Vs The Government of Tamil Nadu

S.Chithra Vs Tamil Nadu Housing Board