IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 26/07/2002
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
Writ Petition No. 17933 of 1990 and Writ Petition No. 18793 of 1990
and W.P.No. 1092, 1093 and 2668 of 2001
and
W.M.P.Nos. 28224, 29636/90, 1684, 1685 and 3615/2001
W.P.No. 17933 of 1990
C. Saraswathi. ..... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Civil Supplies Corporation, Madras-5.
2. The District Collector,
VOC District.
3. The District Supply Officer,
VOC District, Tuticorin.
4. Arasan and Company,
Kovilpatti.
5. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to
Governmment, Food and Co-operation
Department, Madras-9.
(R-5 impleaded as per order of Court
dated 23-11-92). ..... Respondents.
W.P.No. 18793 of 1990
C. Saraswathi.
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
1. The Indian Oil Corporation,
represented by its Regional Manager,
Nungambakkam High Court, Madras-34.
2. The Oil Selection Board (South Zone),
134, Nungambakkam High Road,
Madras-34.
3. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection, Chepauk,
Madras-5.
.. Respondents.
W.P.No. 1092 of 90
T. Paulraj.
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
represented by the Regional Manager,
Nungambakkam, Madras-34.
2. The Oil Selection Board of
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
South Zone, 134, Nungambakkam High Road,
Madras-600 034.
3. The Commissioner,
Civil Supplies Corporation, Chepauk,
Madras-600 005.
.. Respondents.
W.P.No. 1093 of 1991
T. Paulraj.
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Civil Supplies Corporation, Madras-5.
2. The District Collector,
VOC District.
3. The District Supply Officer,
VOC District, Tuticorin.
4. Arasan and Company,
Kovilpatti.
5. The State of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to
Governmment, Food and Co-operation
Department, Madras-9.
(R-5 impleaded as per order of Court
dated 30-11-92).
.. Respondents.`
W.P.No. 2668 of 2001
C. Saraswathi.
.. Petitioner.
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu,
represented by its Secretary to
Government, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Protection Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Department,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
3. The District Supply Officer,
Tuticorin.
.. Respondents.
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writs
of Declaration and Mandamus as stated therein.
!For Petitioner in W.P.Nos. : Mr. D. Peter Francis
17933/90, 18793/90 and 2668 of 2001.
Mr. V. Natarajan for petitioner in W.P.Nos.
1092 and 1093/1990.
^For Respondents : Mr. S. Kandaswamy, Special Govt., Pleader for
R1 to R3 and R5 in W.P.17933/90 and 1093/91 for
R3 in W.P.18793/90, 1092/91 and for R1 to R3 in
W.P.2668/01.
Mr. N. Ishtaq Ahamed for R-1 and R-2 in W.P.Nos.
18793/90 and 1092/91.
:COMMON ORDER
Since challenge in all these writ petitions relate to the same Government
Order, they are being disposed of by the following common Order. One C.
Saraswathi has filed W.P.No. 17933/90 seeking to issue a writ of Declaration
declaring that the amendment to Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade)
Order, 1973 in G.O.Ms.No. 134 Food and Cooperation, dated 26-2-1982, is ultra
vires and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to supply
kerosene to her uninterruptedly as before. The very same petitioner has also
filed W.P.No. 18793/90 seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents (Indian Oil Corporation) and the Commissioner, Civil Supplies and
Consumer Protection, Madras-5 to recognise her as a dealer under the first
respondent for the supply of kerosene for the Ottapidaram Taluk, pursuant to
the licence granted to the petitioner in Licence no. 24 TNV issued under the
Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973. Similar relief,
namely, writ of Declaration and Mandamus has been prayed for by one T.
Baulraj in Writ Petition Nos. 1092 and 1093 of 1991. C. Saraswathi,
petitioner in the first two writ petitions has filed another writ petition,
namely, W.P.No. 2668/2001 seeking to issue a writ of Declaration to declare
that the licence granted to her bearing No.24/TNV in D.Dis. 19003/74 is
deemed to have been renewed in terms of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control
(Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 and consequently direct the respondents to
renew her licence in terms of Rule 4 (3) of the said Kerosene Control Order.
2. For convenience I shall refer the case of C. Saraswathi, petitioner in
W.P.Nos.17933, 18793/90 and 2668/2001. In 1973 Ottapidaram Taluk was newly
formed and as per the policy of the Government each Taluk is to have a
wholesaler and no transport of kerosene from one Taluk to another Taluk is
permitted. The petitioner was asked to open a wholesaler point for
distribution. Accordingly, she was granted licence under the Tamil Nadu
Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Kerosene Control Order”). As per the definition “whosaler”, there is no
condition in the wholesaler licence or under the provisions of the Kerosene
Control Order that in order to be a wholesaler, a person should hold a
dealership agreement with the Indian Oil Corporation. The petitioner was
granted with wholesaler licence bearing No. 24 TNV. The petitioner was also
got licence for the import of petroleum products in accordance with the
Petroleum Act, 1934. She has been carrying on business and selling kerosene
to the retailers and other cooperative societies and Civil Supplies Department
as per the directions of the authorities. When she was lifting the allotted
kerosene through the 4th respondent and carrying on business without any
difficulty on 31-10-81, the District Supply Officer passed an order in and by
which as per the policy of the Government, unless a person gets a dealership
from the oil companies, the wholesaler will not be supplied with kerosene.
The said order was challenged by her in Writ Petition No. 1476/82 before this
Court. On the basis of the statement made by the Government Pleader that the
said condition will not be insisted, and after recording the same, this Court
dismissed the writ petition. Again on 30-11-82, she received a letter from
the 4th respondent informing that from November, 1982 onwards kerosene will
not be supplied to her since she did not have any direct dealership from the
oil companies. Challenging the action of the 4th respondent, she filed
W.P.No. 10562/82. Meanwhile the Government brought an amendment to Kerosene
Control Order and issued G.O.Ms.No. 134, Food and Cooperation dated 26-2-82
whereunder a wholesaler has been defined. In view of the said amendment and
embargo on selling kerosene by one wholesaler to another wholesaler, this
Court dismissed the writ petition. To the same effect, Writ Appeal No. 1111
of 90 was also dismissed by this Court. In the said circumstances, the
petitioner has filed these writ petitions questioning the impugned Government
Order and seeking a direction to the Indian Oil Corporation to recognize her
as a dealer and to declare that her licence is deemed to have been renewed in
terms of Kerosene Control Order. Raising similar contentions, another person
by name Baulraj has prayed for similar relief.
3. Though initially the State of Tamil Nadu is not a party in these
proceedings, subsequently the petitioner C. Saraswathi has impleaded the
State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Food and
Cooperation Department as 5th respondent in W.P. No. 17933 of 90. Though
the Government and other respondents have filed a separate counter affidavit,
the counter affidavit of the District Supply Officer is exhaustive and
relevant. Here again, as stated earlier, I shall refer the stand of the
District Supply Officer, Chidambaranar District, Tuticorin in W.P.No.
17933/90. It is stated that C. Saraswathi was granted kerosene wholesale
licence No.24/TNV in the year 1974 before bifurcation of the District. She
was getting supply of kerosene through Arasan and Company, Indian Oil
Corporation dealer, Koilpatti and supplying kerosene to the retailers under
Public Distribution points as per the allotment orders of the District Supply
Officer, in Ottapidaram Taluk. Subsequently, Tamil Nadu Kerosene ( Regulation
of Trade) Order, 1973 was amended in G.O.Ms.No. 134, Food and Co-operation
Department, dated 26-2-82. The District Supply Officer, Tirunelveli issued a
notice to her to show cause against the cancellation of her wholesale licence
for kerosene since she has no dealership agreement with any of the Oil
Companies. After disposal of her earlier writ petitions, including the last
one namely W.P.No.10562/82 dated 19-10-90, action was initiated to stop supply
of kerosene to the petitioner. Again the petitioner approached this Court and
obtained an order of injunction. The fact that the petitioner is a wholesale
licensee is not disputed. The allotment of kerosene for every month is based
on the policy of the Government of India. It is true that Oil Companies
supply kerosene to their dealers who are having wholesale licences under Tamil
Nadu Kerosene (ROT) Order, 1973. These wholesalers pay the cost of kerosene
to the oil companies, received supply from the installation points and sell it
to the authorized dealers. Certain wholesale licensees who had not been
appointed as dealers of oil companies were getting supply of kerosene from
wholesale dealers who are dealers under oil companies before the amendment.
With a view to prevent misuse of kerosene it was decided not to permit the
sale of kerosene by one wholesaler to another wholesaler and amendments in
G.O.Ms.No. 134 Food and Cooperation Department dated 26-2-82 were issued to
the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (ROT) Order, 1973. In accordance with the said
amendments, no wholesale dealer can sell kerosene to another wholesaler
dealer. The amendment was given effect to prospectively from the date of the
amendment. The petitioner cannot insist supply from another wholesaler.
Since the matter in issue has also been issued by this Court in W.P.No.
10562/82 dated 19-10-90, the petitioner is not permitted to raise once again
the same points. Further, the wholesale licence issued to the petitioner is
still intact and no harm done by the respondents. The Indian Oil Corporation
itself informed the petitioner that it will not supply to the petitioner as
she was not a dealer of the Oil firm. None of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner is taken away. In fact the petitioner has been issued a valid
licence by the respondents to enable her to deal in kerosene. If the Indian
Oil Company refused to supply kerosene directly or through any one of their
dealer as the petitioner was not an authorized dealer of the Indian Oil
Company, inconsonance with their rules and regulations, the petitioner cannot
have any grouse against the respondents. Kerosene belonged to the oil
companies, which supply this products to this State through their authorized
dealers. The respondents are concerned only with the proper distribution of
kerosene by these dealers to the retailers and consumers enforcing the Tamil
Nadu Kerosene(RT)Order 1973 to ensure its equitable distribution at fair
prices. With the valid licence on hand, she has to approach the oil companies
and obtain dealership for the uninterrupted supply of kerosene for trade. If
a wholesaler is permitted to sell to another wholesaler, then the cardholders
will be denied their quota of kerosene to the extent of kerosene sold. This
will result in maldistribution of this product. This cannot be allowed under
Essential Commodities Act, 195 5. Similar averments have been made in the
other cases also.
4. In respect of prayer for direction to the Indian Oil Corporation to
consider the application of the petitioners, Indian Oil Corporation has filed
a counter affidavit stating that there is no statutory legal or other duty
cast on them to appoint the petitioner or any other person as dealer. The
petitioner has no right under any statute or law or otherwise to compel the
respondent to appoint him as a dealer. The question of appointment of a
dealer for any particular area depends on a variety of factors such as market
potential, economic viability and the number of existing dealers in that area.
If there are already one or more dealers in a particular area, unless there is
scope or justification for appointment of a new dealer based on the market
potential or economic viability, the matter of appointment of a new/additional
dealer has to be decided by the oil industry and should there be a need for
such appointment the proposal would be put up to the Ministry of Petroleum for
approval. On getting the approval from the Ministry, a roster will be
prepared. Thereafter, the oil company for which the dealer is to be appointed
will release an advertisement calling for applications from the category under
which the dealer is to be appointed. The applications will be scrutinized and
eligible candidates will be interviewed by the Oil Selection Board. The
selection will be based on the performance at the interview. On the final
recommendation of the Oil Selection Board, the Oil Company will appoint the
dealer. A dealer cannot be appointed now without following the above
procedure. In view of the above said procedure, the question of the Indian
Oil Corporation appointing the petitioner as its dealer as suggested by the
whole-saler does not arise now. They are supplying the kerosene to the
petitioner based on the allocation given by the District Supply Officer. If
for any reason, the petitioner did not get any allocation from the authorities
concerned, the respondent cannot in any way be responsible. Indian Oil
Corporation has filed similar counter affidavit in other writ petitions.
5. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as respondents.
6. Messrs. D. Peter Francis and V. Natarajan, learned counsel for the
petitioners contended that the impugned Government Order is violative of
Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. They also contended that
there is no rule that a wholesaler should be a dealer under oil companies. In
any event, the amendment is only prospective and it cannot alter the licence
conditions of the petitioners. According to them, inasmuch as the impugned
order was not gazetted in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, they cannot have
any force at all. They further contended that in view of the fact that the
Government Orders were not available the respondents are not permitted to
enforce the same. On the other hand, Mr. S. Kandaswamy, learned Special
Government Pleader, after taking me through the relevant provisions from the
Essential Commodities Act and Kerosene Control Order, would contend that the
impugned G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 26-2-82 was duly published in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette and the copies were also available at the relevant time.
He also contended that the Government is well within their powers to amend the
definition ” wholesaler” in order to protect the interests of the consumers.
Inasmuch as the Government have power to amend Control Orders in the interests
of the consumers and for proper distribution of kerosene to all eligible
persons, the action of the Government cannot be faulted with and there is no
merit in any of the writ petitions; accordingly the same are liable to be
dismissed.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions.
8. Among the other contentions, I shall consider the contention of Mr. D.
Peter Francis that the impugned Government Order namely G.O.Ms.No. 134 Food
and Cooperation dated 26-2-82 has not been published in the gazette and not
available for public. Though both the petitioners filed separate writ
petitions questioning the amendment to the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of
Trade) Order, 1973, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No. 134 Food and Cooperation dated
26-2-82, they have not even included a copy of the said Government Order for
perusal of the Court. Due to non-production of even a copy of the said Order,
I am unable to understand how a challenge has been made in these writ
petitions. On direction by this Court, learned Special Government Pleader has
produced a copy of the impugned Government Order which was published in the
Gazette dated 26-2-1982 (Part III-Section 1 ( a)). Apart from producing the
gazette copy of the impugned Government Order, the learned Special Govt.,
Pleader also contended that copies were available for the benefit of the
public at the relevant time. In the light of the production of a copy of the
Government Order, along with the gazette notification which contains the said
order, I am of the view that the first contention of Mr. D. Peter Francis as
to publication of the said Government Order and non availability to public has
no basis; accordingly I reject the same.
9. Coming to the next aspect as to power of the Government, there is no
dispute that by virtue of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955,
the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 came to be passed.
In G.O.Ms.No.274, Food and Cooperation, dated 10-10-73 as seen from The Tamil
Nadu Kerosene ( Regulation of Trade) Orders, 1973 it was ordered that whereas
the State Government are of opinion that for maintaining supplies of Kerosene
and for securing its equitable distribution and availability at fair prices,
it is necessary to provide for the licensing of kerosene. Section 2 defines
“dealer, retailer, wholesaler” etc. Un-amended Clause 2 ( p) defines
“wholesaler” as under:
“Clause 2 (p) “Wholesaler” means a dealer who sells to other dealers and bulk
consumers or other and includes any person or institution selling kerosene in
bulk exceeding 20 litres at a time.”
By virtue of the impugned order, sub-clause (p) has been substituted as under:
“Clause 2 (p) “Wholesaler” means a dealer who sells kerosene to registered
retailers or to the persons who are in possession of special order under
sub-clause (i) of clause 4 of Kerosene ( Restriction on Use) Order, 1966″.
Clause 3 deals with licensing of wholesalers and Clause 4 refers to issue of
licence, period of licence and fee chargeable. We are not concerned with the
other clauses. It is not disputed that the petitioners were issued wholesale
licences in Form II under Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control Order. The purpose of
issue of licence is to identify the wholesale dealers and to regulate and to
control them as and when circumstances warrant. The licence only mentions the
place of business and does not mention anything as entitlement quota and no
supply is assured under the said licence. In the counter affidavit of the 5th
respondent, it is stated that the Commissioner, Civil Supplies
Corporation-first respondent herein submitted a proposal to the Government to
the effect that in the context of scarcity of kerosene it is considered not
desirable to permit a wholesaler to sell kerosene to another wholesaler as it
becomes very difficult to check the proper disposal of the stock. It has also
been stated that the accounts of the wholesalers can be effectively checked
and the misuse of kerosene can be prevented only if the sale of kerosene by
the wholesaler to another wholesaler is prohibited. It has also been stressed
that it is particularly necessary in the context of a difference in the price
between diesel and kerosene and on account of the lower price of kerosene the
transport contractors are attempting to adulterate kerosene with diesel. The
Government examined the proposal of the Commissioner, Civil Supplies carefully
and passed the impugned order. It is also explained that the purpose and aim
of the Government Order is to eliminate the persons who are virtually playing
the role of middle man. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that the
Government have power to amend the Kerosene Control Order in order to supply
kerosene to the needy persons.
10. By referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Chintamanrao v. State
of M.P., reported in A.I.R. 1951 Supreme Court 118, Mr. Peter Francis has
argued that the present action imposes unreasonable restrictions, and that,
therefore, it is violative of the freedom guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g)
of the Constitution. It is true that in that decision Their Lordships have
arrived at a conclusion that the statute which arbitrarily interferes with
private business and imposes unreasonable and unnecessarily restrictive
regulations upon lawful occupation is void and the same cannot be permitted.
Admittedly, the petitioner was granted licence in terms of the Control Order.
In such a circumstance, there is no question of interference in his avocation
as claimed so long as he satisfies the licence conditions and the Control
Order being enforced then and there. The other decision referred to by Mr.
Peter Francis is in the case of Messrs. Dwarka Prasad v. State of U.P.,
reported in A.I.R. 1954 Supreme Court 224 wherein Their Lordships have held
that a law or order which confers arbitrary and uncontrolled power upon the
executive in the matter of regulating trade or business in normally available
commodities cannot but be held to be unreasonable. For the same reasons, the
said decision is also not helpful to the cases on hand.
11. It is relevant to note that the very same petitioner (C. Saraswathi) had
already filed a writ petition namely Writ Petition No. 10562 of 82 seeking
for a direction for supply of kerosene to her. J. Kanakaraj, J., while
considering the amendment made to the Kerosene Control Order as well as the
definition to the expression “whole-saler” as defined in clause 2 (p) of the
Control Order, in the absence of dealership from a oil company and also taking
note of the fact that the respondents have not prevented the petitioner from
carrying on her business, dismissed the said writ petition. The learned Judge
has also opined that the petitioner herself has to be blamed for refusal to
obtain dealership from oil company. In the very same order, the learned
Judge, while considering the definition “wholesaler” has also held that “…In
view of the above amendments, I am clearly of the opinion that the petitioner
cannot seek to get supply from another wholesaler…” It is further seen that
the allotment of kerosene for every month is based on the policy of the
Government of India and oil companies supply kerosene to their dealers who are
having wholesale licenses under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control Order, 1973.
These wholesalers pay the cost of the kerosene to the oil companies, received
supply from the installation points and sell it to the authorized dealers. It
is further seen that certain wholesale licensees who had not been appointed as
dealers of oil companies were getting supply of kerosene from wholesale
dealers who are dealers under oil companies before the amendment. With a view
to prevent misuse of kerosene, it was decided not to permit the sale of
kerosene by one wholesaler to another wholesaler and the impugned amendment
was issued to the Kerosene Control Order. In accordance with the said
amendment, no wholesale dealer can sell kerosene to another wholesale dealer.
The fourth respondent -Arasan and Company who was a dealer of Indian Oil
Corporation and from whom the petitioner was drawing kerosene, refused to
supply kerosene under instructions from Indian Oil Corporation as the
petitioners were not dealers of that oil company. As a matter of fact, the
Indian Oil Corporation itself informs the petitioners that they will not
supply to them as they were not dealers of oil firm.
12. I do not find any substance in the contention that the amendment has
taken away their fundamental rights. In fact, C. Saraswathi has been issued
with a valid licence by the respondents to enable her to deal in kerosene. If
the Indian Oil Company refused to supply kerosene directly or through any one
of their dealer as the petitioner was not an authorised dealer of the Indian
Oil Company, inconsonance with their rules and regulations, the petitioner
cannot have any grouse against the respondents. It is further seen that
kerosene belonged to the oil companies, which supply this product to this
State through their authorized dealers. As rightly argued by the learned
Special Government Pleader, the respondents are concerned only with the proper
distribution of kerosene by these dealers to the retailers and consumers
enforcing the Kerosene Control Order and to ensure its equitable distribution
at fair prices.
13. The amendment contained in G.O.Ms.No. 134 Food and Co-operation dated
26-2-82 banning sale of kerosene by a wholesaler to another wholesaler was a
regulatory measure to discipline the trade and to eradicate certain
malpractices in the trade with a view to make easy availability of kerosene to
the consumers. The very object of the Essential Commodities Act and the
Control Orders issued thereunder, is to ensure equitable distribution of
essential commodities at fair prices in the interest of the public. With this
end in view, the sale of kerosene by one wholesaler to another has been
banned. It is further seen that each of the wholesaler is allotted kerosene
based on the number of family cards attached to the Fair Price shops, which
are tagged to each of the wholesaler, based on actual requirement for
equitable distribution of kerosene. If a wholesaler is permitted to sell to
another wholesaler, then the cardholders will be denied their quota of
kerosene to the extent of kerosene sold. This will result in maldistribution
of this product. This cannot be allowed under the Essential Commodities Act,
1955. I am satisfied that such measures of regulation of trade in essential
commodities are taken in the larger and specific interest of the consumers, in
furtherance of the objects of Essential Commodities Act. It is settled law
that the liberty of an individual to do as he pleases is not absolute. It
must yield to the common good. Absolute or unrestricted individual rights do
not and cannot exist in any modern State. In such a circumstance, I reject
the contra argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
14. In Writ Petition No. 2668 of 2001, it is contended that the petitioner
has made an application for renewal after due payment, but the licence was not
renewed and the same is pending. In the absence of any deeming provision
merely because the petitioner has deposited the renewal fee will not confer
any right. In this regard, it is relevant to refer a decision of the Division
Bench of this Court rendered in Writ Appeal No. 2046 of 2000 dated 19-02-2001
(C. SARASWATHY v. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER AND OTHERS). In para 7, Their
Lordships have held as follows:
“7….As facts culled out, licence was in existence in the year 1993 whereas
according to the learned counsel, the appellant got licence in the year 1974
for a period of three years and the same was not extended though she was
paying the renewal fees. Lastly, the payment of renewal fee was made on
30-11-2000 but the licence was not renewed and the same is pending. To our
mind, merely depositing the renewal fee will not confer any right unless it is
granted…”
Accordingly, it is clear that unless licence is renewed or granted by the
competent authority by way of an order, merely because the petitioner has
deposited the renewal fee does not confer any right on her.
15. As observed by Mohan, J (as he then was) in Writ Petition Nos. 7029 and
7030 of 1980 dated 23-12-1980 (P. MANICKAM v. COLLECTOR OF SOUTH ARCOT,
CUDDALORE AND ANOTHER), there is no fundamental right available to the
petitioner to draw any kerosene. Only when such right is infringed and the
petitioner has been discriminated, the applicability of the doctrine of
equality would arise.
16. Regarding the direction to the Oil Company, in his counter affidavit, the
Chief Retail Marketing Manager of Indian Oil Corporation has categorically
stated that there is no statutory, legal or other duty cast on the
respondent-Indian Oil Corporation to appoint the petitioners or any other
person as dealers. They ( petitioners) have no right under any statute or law
or otherwise to compel them to appoint them as dealers. In the counter
affidavit, they highlighted the procedure for grant of dealership. It is
stated that they have to satisfy certain requirements to be specified in the
advertisement, if any, that may be issued in future by an Oil Company inviting
application for appointment of dealers for their area. They should also
belong to the category under which the dealer is to be appointed, for example,
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Defence, Physically handicapped or Freedom
fighters or open. If the applicant does not belong to that particular
category from which application is called for, they he or she will not be
eligible even to apply for the dealership. It is further stated that the
question of appointment of a dealer for any particular area depends on a
variety of factors such as market potential, economic viability and the number
of existing dealers in that area. It is further stated that if there are
already one or more dealers in a particular area, unless there is scope or
justification for appointment of a new dealer based on the market potential or
economic viability, the matter of appointment of a new/additional dealer has
to be decided by the oil industry and should there be a need for such
appointment the proposal would be put up to the Ministry of Petroleum for
approval. On getting the approval from the Ministry roster will be prepared.
The Oil Company for which the dealer is to be appointed will release an
advertisement calling for applications from the category under which the
dealer is to be appointed. The applications will be scrutinized and eligible
candidates will be interviewed by the Oil Selection Board, constituted for the
purpose of selection of dealers. The selection will be based on the
performance at the interview. On the final recommendation of the Oil
Selection Board, the Oil Company will appoint the dealer. A dealer cannot be
appointed now without following the above procedure. In view of the above
said procedure, there cannot be any direction to the Oil Company for
appointing the petitioners as dealers. In other words, it is for them to
satisfy and fulfill the conditions stipulated therein and only on satisfying
all the conditions and if there is any need the Oil Company will consider
their claim.
17. In the light of what is stated above, I do not find any merit in these
Writ Petitions; consequently they are dismissed. No costs. All the
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:- Yes 26-07-2002 Internet:- Yes R.B. To:- 1. The Commissioner, Civil Supplies Corporation, Madras-600 005. 2. The District Collector, VOC District. 3. The District Supply Officer, VOC District, Tuticorin. 4. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Governmment, Food and Co-operation Department, Madras-600 009. P. SATHASIVAM, J. Common Order in W.P.Nos.17933, 18793/90, 1092,1093 and 2668/2001 and WMP Nos.28224, 29636/90 1684,1685 & 3615/2001.