Dismissed

Prabakaran Chelliah v. the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Madras HC20 Nov 2023WP(MD)/1093/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection for LPG distributorship claiming his land in Saatharasankottai was within Mallal cluster. Court held land was not at advertised Mallal location. Petition dismissed; refund to be processed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Respondent directed to refund petitioner`s deposits within four weeks of receiving the order.

Prabakaran Chelliah Vs the Bharat Petroleum… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 20.11.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD).No.887 of 2020

Prabakaran Chelliah

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Represented by its Regional Manager (LPG) (State Head), Chennai.

¶11

2.The Territory Manager(LPG, Tanjore), The Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Tanjore LPG Territory, M.G.M.TB Sanitorium P.O. Sengipatti, Thanjavur-613 402.

¶12

3.The Kalayarkovil Panchayat Union, Represented by its Executive Officer Cum Block Development Officer,

¶13

Kallayarkovil, Sivagangai District. ... Respondents

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order made by the 2nd respondent in his

¶15

1/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶17

proceedings in TNJ:LPG:DKV(MALLAL) dated 19.12.2019 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner’s candidature for award of LPG distributorship at Mallal, Sivagangai.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rameez Ajmal Khan

¶19

For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.Nateshraaja

¶20

For R-3 : Mr.R.Ragavendran, Government Advocate O R D E R

¶21

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned

¶22

proceedings of the second respondent dated 19.12.2019 and for a consequential direction to the Bharat Petroleum Corporation to consider the candidature of the petitioner to award LPG Distributorship.

¶23

When the matter came up for hearing on 03.10.2023, this Court passed the following order.

¶24

“ Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of either side.

¶25

2. The second respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 19.12.2019 has held the petitioner to be ineligible for LPG

¶26

2/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶28

Distributorship on two grounds and they are:

¶29

(a) The petitioner must possess a property with minimum dimensions 15 metres x 16 metres, whereas, the land for godown possessed by the petitioner was found with dimensions 400 metres x 401 metres.

¶30

(b) The land that was shown for LPG godown is located in a place which is not the advertised location.

¶31

3. Insofar as the first ground for rejection is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the land in possession of the petitioner is much larger than the minimum dimensions that are required under the guidelines issued by the respondents. Insofar as the second ground for rejection is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that Saatharasankottai Village falls within Mallal Panchayat and this Panchayat has specifically been stated even in the application issued by the respondents. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the Certificates issued by the Block Development Officer of Mallal Panchayat and the Village Administrative Officer. The learned counsel also

¶32

3/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶34

brought to the notice of this Court the definition of a location under the guidelines issued by the respondents which states that it can be a locality/village/cluster of villages. Hence, it was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the concerned Village very much falls within the cluster of villages. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel sought for interference of this Court and for further directions to the respondents to award LPG Distributorship to the petitioner.

¶35

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the lease deed that was relied upon by the petitioner did not describe in the schedule with regard to minimum dimensions that are required as per the guidelines and hence, the petitioner was non-suited on that ground. Insofar as the second ground of rejection is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the Distributorship was supposed to be located at Mallal and the petitioner was not admittedly locating the Distributorship at Mallal, whereas, the petitioner wanted to locate the godown at Saatharasankottai Village which did not fall within the advertised location.

¶36

4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶38

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents wanted to file a formal counter in this case and take a specific stand in this Writ Petition.

¶39

Post the matter on 06.11.2023 under the caption “For Orders”. “

¶40

Pursuant to the above order, the second respondent has filed

¶41

a counter affidavit and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

¶42

“5. With respect to averments in 6, it is respectfully submitted that as per the paragraph as per the specified criteria, the petitioner was required to own a plot of land of minimum dimensions 15 Metre x 16 Metre in and within the village or cluster of villages limit as per advertised location i.e. Mallal, as per unified Guidelines For Selection of LPG Distributors Selection dated June 2017, Clause no.8, Sub Clause (m). The petitioner herein had mentioned in his application that he is in possession of a suitable portion of land for Godown under selfregistered at Survey no. 82/1B with dimensions of 400 Metre X 401 Metre However during the Field Verification of credentials, it was found that the land shown for LPG Godown was situated in Survey No. 82/1B Satharasankottai Village which

¶43

5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶45

is not falling within the advertised location "Mallal". As the information provided in the application was found to be false, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled vide letter dated 19.12.2019.

¶46

6. 1s respectfully submitted that the petitioner herein had mentioned in his application that the land for constructing LPG Cylinder godown is situated under Survey no 82/1B, Village Saatharasankottai, Kalayarkovil Taluka, Sivaganga District. The petitioner had also declared that the said village is falling under the cluster of villages for the advertised location. However During Field Verification, it was observed that the land under registered lease deed bearing survey No: 82/1B is situated in Saatharasankottai village and is not located in the advertised location. The location of the land was checked with the Village Administrative Officer Mallal and he had issued a certificate that the land bearing survey No 82/1B is situated comes under Saatharasankottai village which is different from Mallal Village. In view of the same, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.”

¶47

6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶49

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶50

As recorded supra, two grounds are put against the

¶51

petitioner. The first ground is with regard to the size of the property and the second ground is with regard to the location of the property. It will suffice if the second ground is taken into consideration by this Court, since if the petitioner’s property does not fall within the locality, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the size of the property. The relevant portions in the advertisement that was issued by the second respondent is

¶52

extracted hereunder:

¶53

ml;ltiz-B

¶54

t vz;nz miktplk; fpuhk Jiz gphpT tl;lhuk; khtl;lk; gphpT re;ija itg;Gj; re;ijg;glLj;Jk; Fwpg;G
a; gQ;rhaj;J (Sub (Block) pd; njhif jpl;lk;
epWtdk; Division) gphpT (Rs. In (Marketing Plan)
(Tupe Lakhs)
of
Market)
1 IOC nehbA+h; nehbA+h ; Gjf;Nfhl;il fe;jh;tf;Nfhl;il Gjf;Nfhl;il OPEN DKV 4 2017-2018 Re-advt
2 IOC Jiyahej;jk; Jiyahej;jk; Krpwp jhj;ijaq;fhh;Ngl;il jpUr;rpuhg;gs;sp DKV 3 2017-2018 Re-advt
OBC
3 HPC b vilahgl;b b vilahgl;b flT+u; flT+u; fUu; OPEN DKV 4 2017-2018 Re-advt
4 BPC ky;yy; ky;yy; rptfq;if fhisahh;Nfhtpy; rptfq;if OBC DKV 3 2017-2018 Re-advt

¶55

On a plain reading of the advertisement, it is seen that the

¶56

land for the construction of the godown must be situated at Mallal Village. The case of the petitioner is that Satharasankottai Villagae falls within Mallal Village and as per the definition of a location as provided under the

¶57

7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶59

Guidelines, it can be a locality / village / cluster of villages / town or city which is mentioned in the notice for appointment of LPG distributors. According to the petitioner, Satharasankottai Village falls within the cluster of villages in Mallal.

¶60

The specific stand that has been taken in the counter by the Petroleum Corporation is that the locality for putting up the godown must be at Mallal Village and not in Satharasankottai Village. This Court has to necessarily read the advertisement and understand the same without expanding its scope. It is seen that the location of the godown was intended to be only in Mallal which falls within the Mallal Panchayat and just because, Satharasankottai Village forms part of the cluster of the villages, that does not mean that the location of the godown could be made at Satharasankottai Village. To put it in simple terms, the location of the godown was intended to be only at Mallal Village and not at Satharasankottai Village. If any other interpretation is given, it will go against the very advertisement that was issued by the respondent Corporation. This Court exercising its writ jurisdiction cannot give a different interpretation than what was intended by the respondent

¶61

8/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶62

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶63

Corporation.

¶64

In the light of the above discussion, there is no scope to interfere with the decision taken by the Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner had made some deposits at the time of participating in the selection process and the petitioner had sought for refund of the same. The same shall be considered by the second respondent in line with Clause 26 (b) of the Guidelines and the amount that is refundable to the petitioner, shall be refunded within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶65

20.11.2023

¶66

NCC:yes/no Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no tsg To The Executive Officer Cum Block Development Officer, Kalayarkovil Panchayat Union, Kallayarkovil, Sivagangai District.

¶67

9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

W.P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶69

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

¶70

tsg

¶71

W .P.(MD)No.1093 of 2020

¶72

20.11.2023

¶73

10/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Prabakaran Chelliah v. the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabakaran Chelliah v. the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

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

Devanan Vs The District Collector

Selvi .R Vs the Assistant Divisional Engineer

Jaishankar.K, Vs The District Collector

Devendranath.B Vs the Registrar

E.R.Higher Secondary School Society (19/2004) Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Mukayee Vs the District Collector