Dismissed¶45

A.Vijayalakshmi v. the Indian Oil Corporation

Madras HC16 Dec 2025WP/36733/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RGGLV; Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak; Indane Gas Agencies dealership; Indian Oil Corporation; LPG distributorship selection; nativity certificate cancellation and restoration; fresh draw; certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Madras High Court; Sathanur Thiruvannamalai; W.P.No.22147 of 2012; W.P.Nos. 5043 & 5425 of 2013; Jayakanthan; Thasanadhan; Muthulakshmi; cancellation of distributorship dated 28.03.2024; writ petition dismissed no costs.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner cannot once again seek allotment of the distributorship based on her 2010 selection, which was subjected to judicial scrutiny and superseded by this Court's direction for a fresh draw. ¶9

A.Vijayalakshmi Vs the Indian Oil Corporation — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶6

A.Vijayalakshmi W/o.A.V.Prashath, 1043, Sathanur Dam Road, Old No.102, North Street, Sathanur Village, Thanrampet Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District

¶7

Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The Indian Oil Corporation, Rep. By Chief Area Manager, Indane Divisional Office, 500 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.

¶10

2.Divisional LPG Head, Chennai Indane Divisional Office, Marketing Division, Indane Divisional Office, 500 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order dated 28/03/2024 made in Ref.No.CHAO /STR passed by the 2nd

¶14

1 of 7

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶17

respondent and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to select petitioner as a dealer for Indane Gas Agencies under the scheme Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Sathanur, Thiruvannamalai District.

¶18

For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.Balu

¶19

For Respondent(s): Mr, R.Sreedhar, Standing Counsel, for R1 & R2

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging the impugned order dated 28.03.2024 passed by the 2^nd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that she has applied for an LPG distributorship under RGGLV Scheme by producing a Nativity Certificate bearing No.87/2010 dated 21.01.2011. She was selected on 15.06.2011. Thereafter, one Jayakanthan, who was one among the unsuccessful candidate, made a representation to the Tahsildar seeking cancellation of the petitioner’s Nativity Certificate and without conducting any enquiry, the Tahsildar cancelled the said certificate.

¶23

Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai. The petitioner has also filed 2 of 7

¶24

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

¶25

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶26

W.P.No.22147 of 2012 seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated period. This Court, by order dated 14.08.2012, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the RDO, Thiruvanamalai to consider the appeal and pass orders within a period of four weeks. Consequently, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, by proceedings dated 10.01.2013, restored the nativity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶27

However, all of a sudden, on 28.01.2013, one Mr.Thasanadhan was selected. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5043 of 2013 challenging the selection of Mr.Thasanadhan and Mr.Jayakanthan filed W.P.No.5425 of 2013 seeking a direction to conduct a fresh draw. This Court, by a common order, dated 03.08.2022, disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to conduct a fresh draw. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made a representation to the first respondent on 16.09.2022. The first respondent thereafter issued a notice vide No.CHAO-105/RGGLB/STR/02 dated 28.10.2022 calling upon the candidates to appear for the draw for selection of RGGLB on 14.11.2022 at 10.00 a.m. The petitioner had participated in the said draw, and Mr.Jayakanthan was selected.

¶28

Thereafter, on 07.12.2022, the petitioner made a representation stating that the selected candidate Mr.Jayakanthan, did not satisfy the eligibility criteria

¶29

3 of 7

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶32

as advertised by the first respondent in the year 2010 and that one Mrs.Muthulakshmi also did not have residence in the advertised area. The second respondent, vide letter No.CIIAO/RGGLB/STR/01 dated 20.02.2023, issued a reply. However, without considering the prolonged litigation, the second respondent suddenly cancelled all distributorship in the advertised area vide the impugned order dated 28.03.2024. Challenging the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was originally selected on 15.06.2011. Subsequently, pursuant to the orders passed in the writ petition, a fresh draw was conducted, in which one Jayakanthan was selected and his selection was also cancelled. Therefore, according to the petitioner, since she was selected in the year 2010, she ought to be granted the distributorship based on the said selection.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that much water has been flown since the original advertisement dated 13.03.2010. Though the petitioner was initially selected, several writ petitions came to be filed before this Court, and in W.P. Nos.5043 and 5425 of 2013, this Court directed the respondents to conduct a fresh draw and permit the petitioner

¶35

4 of 7

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶38

to participate in the same, and further directed that whoever was selected in

¶39

such fresh draw should be granted the distributorship. The said order was passed on 03.08.2022. Pursuant thereto, a fresh draw was conducted, in which one Jayakanthan was selected. Subsequently, his distributorship was also cancelled. Therefore, it is contended that nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.

¶40

I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made on both side and perused the materials placed on records carefully.

¶41

The petitioner seeks allotment of the distributorship based on the selection made in the year 2010. It is relevant to note that the said selection was the subject matter of the multiple litigations. This Court, in W.P.Nos. 5043 & 5425 of 2013, had already directed the respondents to conduct a fresh draw, which was accordingly conducted. One Jayakanthan candidate was selected in such a fresh draw and his candidature was also cancelled subsequently. At this stage, the petitioner cannot once again seek allotment based on the 2010 selection, which itself was subjected to judicial scrutiny and superseded by the direction for a fresh draw. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.

¶42

5 of 7

¶43

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

¶44

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶45

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed . No costs.

¶46

16-12-2025

¶47

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes

¶48

mrp

¶49

¶50

1.The Chief Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Indane Divisional Office, 500 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.

¶51

2.Divisional LPG Head, Chennai Indane Divisional Office, Marketing Division, Indane Divisional Office, 500 Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018.

¶52

6 of 7

¶53

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

¶54

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶55

N.SATHISH KUMAR J.

¶56

mrp

¶57

WP No. 36733 of 2024

¶58

16-12-2025

¶59

7 of 7

¶60

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 28.03.2024 of the 2nd respondent cancelling all distributorship in the advertised area (made in Ref.No.CHAO/STR)¶32
2nd respondent - Divisional LPG Head, Chennai Indane Divisional Office, Indian Oil Corporation · 28.03.2024
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied for LPG distributorship under the RGGLV Scheme producing Nativity Certificate No.87/2010 dated 21.01.2011 and was selected on 15.06.2011.¶22
Prior proceeding
On the representation of unsuccessful candidate Jayakanthan, the Tahsildar cancelled the petitioner's Nativity Certificate without conducting any enquiry.¶22
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, and also filed W.P.No.22147 of 2012 seeking a direction to dispose of the appeal within a stipulated period.¶23
Prior proceeding
By order dated 14.08.2012 in W.P.No.22147 of 2012, this Court directed the RDO, Thiruvanamalai to consider the appeal and pass orders within four weeks.¶26
Prior proceeding
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvannamalai, by proceedings dated 10.01.2013, restored the nativity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner.¶26
Prior proceeding
On 28.01.2013 one Mr.Thasanadhan was selected; the petitioner filed W.P.No.5043 of 2013 challenging his selection and Jayakanthan filed W.P.No.5425 of 2013 seeking a fresh draw.¶27
Prior proceeding
By common order dated 03.08.2022 in W.P.Nos.5043 & 5425 of 2013, this Court disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to conduct a fresh draw.¶27
Prior proceeding
Pursuant to the common order, the first respondent issued notice No.CHAO-105/RGGLB/STR/02 dated 28.10.2022 calling candidates for a draw on 14.11.2022.¶27
Prior proceeding
The petitioner participated in the fresh draw held on 14.11.2022, in which Mr.Jayakanthan was selected.¶27
Prior proceeding
By representation dated 07.12.2022 the petitioner contended that selected candidate Mr.Jayakanthan did not satisfy the eligibility criteria advertised in 2010 and that Mrs.Muthulakshmi lacked residence in the advertised area.¶28
Prior proceeding
The second respondent replied by letter No.CIIAO/RGGLB/STR/01 dated 20.02.2023.¶32

A.Vijayalakshmi v. the Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Vijayalakshmi v. the Indian Oil Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Indra Vs Tmt.M.Aruna IAS

C.Velavendan Vs Dr.Chandramohan, and 4 others

K.Neelakandan (Deceased), Vs the District Collector

K.R.Vaidyinathan Vs The Tahsildar

J.Saradha Vs the Managing Director/

K.R.Vaidyinathan Vs The Tahsildar