BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/02/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN W.P.(MD)No.5619 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 Chinnasami ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Territory Manager (Retail sale), Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Aathur & Kadameri Village, Erode Salai, Aathur Post, Karur-2. 2.The Chairman, Dealer Selection Committee, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Aathur & Kadameri Village, Erode Salai, Aathur Post, Karur-2. 3.Gunasekaran 4.Kumaravel ... Respondents Prayer Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned selection proceedings nil dated nil passed by the second respondent selecting the third and fourth respondents as dealers for the retail outlet (petrol pump) dealership for the location namely Somarasampettai in Thiruchy District and quash the same as illegal. !For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Jayaprakash Narayan ^For Respondent No.1 ... Mr.S.Nates Raja For Respondents 3&4 ... Mr.S.K.Mani ******** :ORDER
******
The petitioner challenges the selection of respondents 3 and 4 as
the authorized dealers of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for their
petroleum products at Somarasampettai in the district of Trichy.
RELEVANT FACTS:
2. M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited issued a notification
on 05.10.2009 calling for applications from eligible candidates for awarding the
retail outlet dealership. The petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 applied for
the retail outlet dealership at Somarasampettai. It was an open category. The
petitioner along with his application enclosed a copy of the registered sale
deed dated 30.12.2002 indicating that he was in possession of the required land
for locating the outlet. The respondents 3 and 4 produced the documents relating
to the property in S.F.Nos.6/1 and 6/6 in Somarasampettai. Village. The said
property belongs to a trust and a condition was incorporated to the effect that
the income from the property has to be used for charity. Therefore, the property
shown by respondents 3 and 4 cannot be used for putting up the outlet. However,
disregarding the terms and conditions, regarding the enjoyment of the property,
the second respondent has awarded the dealership to the respondents 3 and 4.
Feeling aggrieved by the said selection, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. The first respondent, in their counter-affidavit, contended that
the land offered by respondents 3 and 4 in S.F.Nos.6/1 and 6/6 contains larger
extent. The entire extent is not necessary for locating the outlet. The thanneer
pandhal dharmam has to be performed only in S.F.No.6/1 from and out of the
income from other lands. Therefore, respondents 3 and 4 can very well utilize
the income from the property for charity. The first respondent maintained that
the selection was done in a fair and transparent manner and as such, no
interference is called for at the instance of the petitioner.
4. The fourth respondent, in his counter-affidavit, alleged mala
fides against the petitioner. According to the fourth respondent, the obligation
was only to do charity by way of providing water and butter milk to the needy at
the cost of Rs.90/- and the income from the property would be used for charity.
The fourth respondent further contended that the petitioner has earlier filed a
suit through a known person in O.S.No.586 of 2010 before the learned District
Munsif, Thiruchirappalli, praying for a decree of injunction, restraining the
respondents 3 and 4 from putting up construction in the property. Since no
interim order was granted, another suit was instituted in the name of
Mr.Vijayakumar, who is none other than the son of the petitioner. The said suit
in O.S.No.757 of 2010 is also pending on the file of the learned Principal
District Munsif, Trichirappalli. Accordingly, the fourth respondent justified
the grant of dealership.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
ANALYSIS:
6. The petitioner challenges the selection of respondents 3 and 4 as
the retail outlet dealers of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited solely on
the ground that the property shown by them to locate the outlet was the subject
matter of a trust and as such, it was not possible to put up the outlet in the
said property.
7. The counter-affidavit filed by the fourth respondent clearly
gives an indication that the condition was only to do charity out of the income
derived from the property. The stipulation was to spend a sum of Rs.90/- for
charity. The first respondent, in their counter-affidavit, very clearly stated
that they require only about 20 cents of land for locating the retail outlet.
However, the property in S.F.Nos.6/1 and 6/6 is having an extent more than one
acre. Therefore, the petitioner is not correct in his contention that no
construction could be made in the property shown by respondents 3 and 4.
8. The petitioner has not produced any documents in support of his
contention that no construction is possible in the property shown by respondents
3 and 4. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is not possible for respondents 3
and 4 to locate the retail outlet in the subject property.
9. The proceedings referred to in paragraph No.13 of the counter-
affidavit filed by the fourth respondent gives an indication that the petitioner
has already filed two suits through his son and another known person. Though the
prayer in the civil suit also pertains to the subject property, no injunction
appears to have been obtained by the petitioner. The materials produced by the
petitioner would not show that respondents 3 and 4 have no title and as such, it
would not be possible for them to locate the retail outlet in the said property.
10. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the entire factual
matrix, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the selection of
respondents 3 and 4 as the retail dealers of M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited.
11. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. No costs.
SML
To
1.The Territory Manager (Retail sale),
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Aathur & Kadameri Village,
Erode Salai,
Aathur Post,
Karur-2.
2.The Chairman,
Dealer Selection Committee,
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited,
Aathur & Kadameri Village,
Erode Salai,
Aathur Post,
Karur-2.