Dismissed

A.Sujitha v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP(MD)/9075/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner's candidature for an LPG distributorship. The court held the selection authority correctly rejected the applicant because she failed to produce a registered lease deed at the time of application as per the eligibility brochure, despite having a mere unregistered lease and future intent to register.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner allowed to participate in any fresh tender floated by the second respondent. No costs.

A.Sujitha Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 03.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)No.7066 of 2019

A.Sujitha

... Petitioner

/Vs./

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., G-9, All Yavar Jung Marg,Bandra(East), Mumbai-51

¶11

The Senior Area Manager Indian Oil Corp.Ltd., Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, Triveni 2^nd Floor, B-35, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-18. .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, To issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed in No.TRAO/IMP/ Kulaimalai/02 dated 16.02.2018 by the 2 nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to grant the LPG Distributorship License in favour of the petitioner as per the letter of the 2 nd respondent in Reference No.TRAO/ IMP/ KULAIMALAI/02 dated 01.08.2016 and in terms of the order passed in WP(MD) No. 23725 of 2016 dated 12.04.2017.

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kadarkarai

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.K.Muraleedharan for R2

¶18

: No appearance for R1

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent dated 16.02.2018, thereby rejected the petitioner's candidature on the ground that the showroom land lease document has not been registered in her favour.

¶21

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

3. On the notification issued by the second respondent, the

¶23

petitioner applied for Distributorship for PLG project under the Arunthathiyar candidates. The petitioner was invited to participate in the LOT selection and the petitioner was successfully selected. The petitioner also made deposit to the tune of Rs.25,000/- in order to complete the pre-condition stipulated in the notification. In order to establish her capacity to set up the required infrastructure facility, the

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶27

petitioner had enclosed copies of the registered sale deed dated 16.09.2004 and 08.08.2008 to the extent of 1.03 ½ cents for setting up the godown and lease agreement dated 19.11.2013 executed between the petitioner and her lessor. In respect of the land and building to an extent of 4.50 cents located at Door No.48/2b, Sathyamangalam village, Iyermalai, Karur District, for setting up a show room and LPG outlet.

¶28

4. However, the second respondent vide its communication dated 19.10.2016, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the show room land leased document has not been registered. As per the Brochure on guidelines for selection of Regular LPG Distributors – August 2013, it is mentioned in point No.6.1, stated that “Own” means having ownership title of the property or registered lease agreement for minimum 15 years in the name of applicant / family member as defined in multiple distributorship norm of eligibility criteria.

¶29

5. In the case on hand, there was a mutual understanding between the petitioner and her lessor for registering the lease, as per the order of distributorship. Therefore, the lease deed was not registered as on the

¶30

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

¶31

3/6

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶33

date of submission of her application. Therefore, attributing mutual understanding between the petitioner and her lessor for not registering the lease deed as on the date of submission of her application cannot be accepted. As per point No.9 of Brochure, the lease deed for showroom should be registered in her favour. But, no lease deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for showroom and therefore, the petitioner's candidature was rejected by the second respondent.

¶34

6. On perusal of the rental lease agreement produced by the petitioner, it revealed that it is an unregistered one for the period of 15 years dated 19.11.2013 for show room Door No.48/2b, Sathyamangalam village, Iyermalai, Karur District, whereas, in the application submitted by the petitioner, she stated that it is a registered lease deed dated 20.11.2013. Therefore, as on date of the application, i.e., 22.11.2013, no land was owned by the petitioner for the showroom. Therefore, the petitioner failed to establish her capacity to take up LPG distributorship and run successfully and also did not meet the requirement of selection for regular LPG distributorship, as per the selection Brochure of the year 2013.

¶35

4/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶38

Therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected

¶39

by the second respondent. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the second respondent and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. If the second respondent floated fresh tender, the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the same. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶40

03.12.2024

¶41

Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes/No LS

¶42

TO:-

¶43

1 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., G-9, All Yavar Jung Marg,Bandra(East), Mumbai-51.

¶44

2 The Senior Area Manager Indian Oil Corp.Ltd., Marketing Division, Indane Area Office, Triveni 2 nd Floor, B-35, Shastri Road, Thillai Nagar, Trichy-18.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶48

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶49

¶50

Order made in W.P.(MD)No.9075 of 2019

¶51

Dated: 03.12.2024

¶52

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

A.Sujitha v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sujitha v. Indian Oil Corp. 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

M.Mahalingam, Vs the District Collector

Arangulavan Vs The Inspector General of Registration

K.S. Rajendran Vs the Executive Officer

P.Santhosh Kumar, S/O.Pandi, Vs the Regional Manager

A.Lalitha, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Senthil Kumaran Vs The Inspector General of Registration