Dismissed

S.Muthukumar, v. the Union of India

Madras HC26 Jul 2024WP(MD)/16681/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 seeking a directive to install transparent fuel lines in petrol pumps and set up a task force to regulate petroleum outlets. The court refused the plea as lacking merit and not advisable for public safety.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with no costs awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

S.Muthukumar, Vs the Union of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.16681 of 2017

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 26.07.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.D.KRISHNAKUMAR, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶8

W.P.(MD)No.16681 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)No.13284 of 2017

S.Muthukumar

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001.

¶13

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶14

3.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶15

4.The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶16

Page 1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

W.P.(MD) No.16681 of 2017

¶19

5.The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives,

¶20

No.26, Shastri Bhavan, Block 1-8 Wing A & D, 2^nd Floor, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034.

¶21

6.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶22

7.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶23

8.Bharat Petroleum Corporation, Rep. through its Territorial Manager, TPK Road, Pasumalai, Madurai.

¶24

... Respondents

¶25

(R8 is impleaded vide Court order dated 18.01.2024 in W.M.P.(MD)No.3943 of 2023)

¶26

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to install transparent fuel lines in all petrol pumps, to set up special task force to regulate petroleum firms, dealers, agents and outlets.

¶27

For Petitioner : No Appearance For R1 : Mr.K.R.Laxman For R2, R3 : Mr.P.Thilakkumar, & R6 Government Pleader For R4 & R7 : Mr.S.Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor For R5 : Mr.S.Palani Manickam For R8 : Mr.S.Natesh Raaja

¶28

Page 2 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(MD) No.16681 of 2017

¶31

ORDER

¶32

[Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶33

The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is to direct the respondents to

¶34

install transparent fuel lines in all petrol pumps and set up special task force to regulate petroleum firms, dealers, agents and outlets.

¶35

2.The learned counsel for the 8^th respondent, relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the 8^th respondent, would submit that the petitioner, being a practising Advocate, is misleading this Court and put forth suggestions without anticipating the repercussion of the same. Further, the 8^th respondent has adequate and proper system to ensure proper facilities to the motoring public and ensuring their safety and security, which has been completely disregarded by the petitioner. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:-

¶36

“8.With respect to averments in paragraph 7, I submit that the suggestion put forth by the petitioner in the said paragraph is not at all viable and will also be a threat to the safety of the general public as well as property. I submit that the petitioner is advocating for transparent fuel lines at the retail outlets which is a very dangerous proposition. The transparent hose pipe like plastic or fibre based hose pipe are not recommended to fill petroleum products.

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.(MD) No.16681 of 2017

¶40

When petrol is pumped through plastic, it generates static electricity and when the pipe touches the car body, there are chances of spark / fire. Further, I submit that retail outlets have to use electrical continuity hose for handling petroleum products. The hose pipe is required to be robust and withstand wear and tear in all types of weather and environmental conditions. The said hose pipes are internally refurbished with metal coils so as to prevent easy breakage as well as to provide electrical continuity. This kind of design helps to cut the static charge generation and keep the fire at bay. Therefore, the system in place currently has taken into account various factors and the design of the hose pipes is according to the same.”

¶41

3.In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of

¶42

the petitioner raised in this Writ Petition and the petitioner, being a practising Advocate, has filed this Writ Petition as Public Interest Litigation without furnishing proper details and particulars. Therefore, finding no merits, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶43

[D.K.K., A.C.J.] & [R.V., J.] 26.07.2024

¶44

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Yuva

¶45

Page 4 of 6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD) No.16681 of 2017

¶48

¶49

1.The Chief Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶50

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Home Secretary, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶51

3.The Director General of Police, Post Box No.601, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.

¶52

4.The District Collector, Madurai District, Madurai.

¶53

5.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai.

¶54

Page 5 of 6

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.(MD) No.16681 of 2017

¶57

D.KRISHNAKUMAR, A.C.J.

¶58

AND R.VIJAYAKUMAR , J.

¶59

Yuva

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.16681 of 2017

¶61

26.07.2024

¶62

Page 6 of 6

¶63

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

S.Muthukumar, v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Muthukumar, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvakumar C Vs The State Government

Rukmani Vs The District Collector

M.Saravanakumar Vs The Commmissionerate of Prohibition and Excise Department

A.M.Sundaravel Party in Person Vs the Chief Secretary

A.M.Sundaravel, Vs the Chief Secretary to

Muthuramalingam S Vs The District Collector / Monitoring Committee