Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR versus THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dr.K.Santhosh Kumar v. The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - WRIT PETITION (MD) No.3369 of 2004 [2007] RD-TN 2069 (26 June 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 26/06/2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.CHANDRU

WRIT PETITION (MD) No.3369 of 2004

and

WPMP (MD)No.3637 of 2006

and

M.P.(MD)NO.1 OF 2006

Dr.K.Santhosh Kumar .. Petitioner vs.

1.The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Reg.Office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,

Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051,

rep. by its General Manager.

2.The General Manager,

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Indian Oil Bhavan, Nungambakkam,

Chennai,

Tamilnadu.

3.The Divisional Manager,

Madurai Divisional Office,

No.2 Race Course Road,

Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625002.

4.V.Vijayakumar,

The Divisional Manager,

Madurai Divisional Office,

No.2 Race Course Road,

Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

5.The Senior Divisional

Retail Sales Manager,

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

No.2, Race Course Road,

Chokkikulam,

Madurai - 625 002.

6.T.V.Sundaravadivel .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 5 herein to forbear from appointing any one other than the petitioner (who is holding the Letter of Intent dated 19.9.2005) as the Retail Outlet Dealer of Indian Oil for the Location: Madurai City - I which is reserved for the Scheduled Castes under Notification dated 21.12.2003.

Dr. K.Santhosh Kumar : Party in person

Ms.N.Krishnaveni : for R1 to R5

Mr. V.Sitharanajan Doss : for R6

:ORDER



Heard the petitioner appearing in party in person, Ms. N.Krishnaveni, learned counsel appearing for R1 to R5 and Mr.Sitharanjan Doss, learned counsel appearing for R6 and have perused the records.

2. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents 1 to 5 to forbear appointing any one other than the petitioner as Retail Outlet Dealer of the Indian Oil Corporation (for short "IOC"). For Madurai City - I, for which the petitioner has allegedly a letter of intentent (LOI) dated 19.9.2005. The facts of this case are not disputed.

3. The respondents/ "IOC" by advertisement dated 21.12.2003 called for applications for locating "IOC" retail outlets in 233 locations. In the said advertisement, out of location Nos.110 to 233, a total of 125 locations were reserved for special categories like Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In one of the locations viz., location No.209, Madurai City - I is reserved for Scheduled Castes. Similarly, location NO.210, Madurai City II was also reserved for Scheduled Castes.

4. The petitioner, a medical practitioner and also belonging to Scheduled Caste, made an application for both the locations as there was no ceiling in making applications. He appeared for an interview. The selection list for the said interview was published by the respondents showing for Madurai City I, rank No.I and for Madurai City, the petitioner was ranked as No.II. However, the said selection was cancelled and after a year later, a fresh interview was conducted for Madurai City I on 27.6.2005 and for Madurai City II on 17.6.2005. In the second interview, without any protest, the petitioner had participated and there was no challenge to the earlier cancellation made by the "IOC". The results published in the said interview and the rank given to the respective candidates are as follows:

Madurai City - I

Madurai City II

1.

T.V.Sundaravadivelu

(6th respondent)

1.

T.V.Sundaravadivelu

(6th respondent)

2.

K.Santhosh Kumar (Petitioner)

2.

K.Santhosh Kumar (Petitioner)

3.

Veerapandi

3.

Veerapandi

5. Admittedly, in the second interview in which the petitioner had participated he was ranked as No.II for both the locations. Since Madurai City II interview was held earlier, the 6th respondent selected an outlet at Othakadai situated in Madurai - Melur Highways coming under City II. Therefore, originally, a Letter of Intent was given to Madurai City II for the 6th respondent and for the petitioner, Letter of Intent was given for Madurai City I. But since the interview for Madurai City-I was conducted later i.e. after 10 days, the 6th respondent changed his mind and sought for an outlet in City I. As already stated, there was no bar for making any application and the interview for City-I was conducted subsequently. It is made clear that there was nothing wrong in the 6th respondent changing his mind and seeking for allotment of an outlet at Madurai City I.

6. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has come forward to enforce his alleged right of having bunk located at City I of his choice. It is also submitted in the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner that "IOC" has allotted a retail outlet functioning at the Race Course Road, Madurai City II to the 6th respondent, who also obtained registration from the Commercial Tax Department.

7. The petitioner appearing in party in person forcefully contended that he has been cheated by the "IOC" and even though he had a Letter of Intent for Madurai City I, he has not been given a retail outlet for Madurai City I.

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 5, they had categorically stated that there is no geographical divisions called as City I and City II and the 6th respondent being first in the selection list for both areas, naturally, has a preference over the petitioner and they also stated that as and when the "IOC" finds a suitable place for starting a retail outlet, the same will be allotted to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not interested in taking any other outlet situated in Madurai. The petitioner is not interested in availing allotment of other outlets. His only contention is that he was entitled for Race Course Road, Chokkikulam outlet.

9. Before going into the legal issue, the right for the petitioner to enforce the "LOI" given to him for Madurai City I, whether enforceable has to be determined. It is not as if the petitioner or any other person has developed a project after getting the "LOI", sought to enforce the promise given by the "IOC". In the present case, neither the petitioner nor the second respondent owned any outlet or has infrastructure in developing project on their own strength. Naturally, it was for "IOC" to develop an outlet to be allotted to the prospective SC/ST applicants. At best, it is only a privilege conferred by "IOC" and there is no question of enforcing any alleged right on the part of any person, who merely has a "LOI".

10. In the present case, it is not as if the petitioner's rights were extinguished by the allotment of a retail outlet to the 6th respondent, who admittedly ranked as No.I in the selection list and who has a preferential right to locate his outlet over the petitioner as he was also an applicant to the City I.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no geographical distinction, and insofar as City I and City II and they are hypothetical and the entire Maduri City is one unit and he has fairly conceded that a retail outlet being developed at Kochadai will be allotted to the petitioner. However, the petitioner is in no mood to avail that offer and he is very particular about a particular outlet, which had already been allotted.

12. The petitioner, who argued in person was unable to substantiate any legal right in support of his contention and he merely contended that in the first selection, he was ranked as No.I and in the second list he was degraded to a second position. As already seen, the petitioner has not challenged the cancellation of earlier selection. Having waited for one year, he participated without any protest in the second selection. Therefore, the question going into the correctness of the averments of the petitioner does not arise in the present case.

13. It must be stated that the writ petitioner is a medical practitioner having an MBBS Degree and Diploma in Ortho and is not a person who is in distress and who wants to be compensated by the State in their offering of a privilege on the deprived sections.

14. Under the circumstances, I find no mala fide or arbitrariness on the part of the "IOC" in granting an outlet basing upon the rank obtained by the 6th respondent. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is without substance. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. No costs. WPMP (MD)No.3637 of 2006 and M.P.(MD)NO.1 of 2006 are closed.

asvm

To

1.General Manager.

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Reg.Office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg,

Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400 051,

2.The General Manager,

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

Indian Oil Bhavan, Nungambakkam,

Chennai,

Tamilnadu.

3.The Divisional Manager,

Madurai Divisional Office,

No.2 Race Course Road,

Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625002.

4.V.Vijayakumar,

The Divisional Manager,

Madurai Divisional Office,

No.2 Race Course Road,

Chokkikulam, Madurai - 625 002.

5.The Senior Divisional

Retail Sales Manager,

The Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

No.2, Race Course Road,

Chokkikulam,

Madurai - 625 002.




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.