Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

D.CHINNATHAMBI versus INDIAN OIL

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


D.Chinnathambi v. Indian Oil - WA.737 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1812 (7 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED :07.06.2007

C O R A M :

THE HONOURABLE MR.A.P.SHAH, THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI

W.A.No. 737 of 2007

and

M.P.No.1 of 2007

1.D. Chinnathambi

2.D. Palanivel ... Appellants -vs-

1.The General Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

139 Nungambakkam High Road

Chennai 34.

2.The Chief Divisional Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Chennai Divisional Office

500 Anna Salai, Teynampet

Chennai 18.

3.The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Madurai Divisional Office

No.2 Race Course Road

Chokkikulam, Madurai 2.

4.N. Sivakumar ... Respondents Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge dated made in W.P.No.8759 of 2007 dated 30.04.2007. For appellants :: Mr. S. Vijayakumar For respondents :: Mr. Abdul Saleem 1 and 2 M./s. Anand Abdul and Vinoth Associates Mr. R. Chandrasekaran for R.4 Not ready in notice for R.3

JUDGMENT



( DELIVERED BY P.JYOTHIMANI,J.)

In respect of leasing out of the land situated at No.160, Krishnapuram Village, Gingee Taluk in Survey No.104/2A measuring an extent of 22500 sq.ft. for the purpose of running the petrol bunk, it is the case of the appellants that the lease was entered between the appellants' family and the respondent Corporation for 20 years, as per the agreement entered in March, 2002. The first appellant was issued with letter of allotment by the second respondent Corporation on 23.09.2002, which should actually expire on 30.09.2003, however, the case of the appellants is that, it was subsequently extended upto 30.09.2004. When the notification was issued by the first and second respondent on 21.12.2003, inviting application for award of retail out-let at Gingee under Special Category (OSP), a writ petition was filed by the first appellant, which was withdrawn, based on which the third respondent had issued a letter of indent on 28.02.2005 in favour of the second appellant. A reference to the said letter, shows that it is only awarding of job contractorship for operating COCO retail outlet at Gingee from 28.02.2005 to 27.02.2006, i.e., for a period of one year. It is also seen that in the said proceedings of the third respondent dated 28.02.2005, the period of operation will be for one year, upto 27.02.2006 or till such date by which a regular dealer is appointed, whichever is earlier. For that, the second appellant has given an undertaking.

2. It is further seen that, by subsequent order dated 26.02.2006, the second respondent has given further period of one year to the second appellant with effect from 28.02.2006 or till completion of one year or such date by which a regular dealer is appointed, whichever is earlier and to that effect also there has been an undertaking given by the second appellant. In such circumstances, when the period of dealership has come to an end as early as 27.02.2007, especially when the second respondent has already granted dealership to the 4th respondent by way of regular dealership, there is no vested right on the part of the appellants to claim permanent dealership. In view of the same, as rightly pointed out by the learned single Judge, the question of principles of natural justice does not arise. Therefore, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. kh

To

1. The General Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

139 Nungambakkam High Road

Chennai 34.

2. The Chief Divisional Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Chennai Divisional Office

500 Anna Salai, Teynampet

Chennai 18.

3. The Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager

Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Madurai Divisional Office

No.2 Race Course Road

Chokkikulam, Madurai 2.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.