E.Juliet Dhas Vs The Divisional Lpg Head

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondent to retransfer the petitioner's customers to the petitioner's agency from nearby agencies and consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff Standing Counsel

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to re-transfer

¶14

the petitioner's customers to the petitioner's agency from nearby agencies and consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P(MD)No.16415 of 2025

¶18

2.By consent of both parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶19

3.The Petitioner's case is that that Petitioner had a customer base of about 27,518 customers, However, the agency of the Petitioner was suspended by the respondent on 23.08.2021, which was later restored on 12.04.2022. However, while restoring the agency to the Petitioner, the Respondents had restricted access to only 13,173 customers from the original customer base. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has stepped into the business after the partnership firm was dissolved and that the petitioner is being subjected to loss as the petitioner was able to retain only 13,173 customers out of 27,518 customers. It is the case of the Petitioner that at least an additional 7,000 customers ought to be transferred back to the Petitioner.

¶20

4.On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that these are purely commercial in nature based on the policy of the respondent. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has no right and therefore, there is no scope for issuance of mandamus.

¶21

2/4

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.16415 of 2025

¶24

5.Considering the argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondent, the respondent, who is not state with the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Merely because, the respondent is enjoying a mere monopoly insofar as the distribution of LPG gas connections through the agency. Therefore, there can be no mandamus against the respondent. All the same, there can be direction to consideration the representation dated 12.04.2025 of the petitioner and dispose the same. The respondent is therefore, directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 12.04.2025 and pass appropriate orders based on the applicable guidelines issued from time to time within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶25

6.Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs.

¶26

19.06.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No vsg

¶27

3/4

¶28

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

¶29

W.P(MD)No.16415 of 2025

¶30

C.SARAVANAN, J.