S.Muniyasamy vs The Government Of India on 29 October, 2011

Madras High Court
S.Muniyasamy vs The Government Of India on 29 October, 2011




DATED: 29/10/2011


W.P.(MD)No.7562 of 2011
M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011

S.Muniyasamy				  .. Petitioner


1.The Government of India,
  Represented by the Principal Secretary,
  Ministry of Petroleum,
  New Delhi.
2.The Regional Manager,
  Bharath Petroleum Corporation,
3.The Territory Manager LPG
  Bharath Petroleum Corporation,
  Tuticorin Territory LPG
  Tuticorin.				... Respondents


Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records pertaining to the impugned order in TCN:LPG RGGLV :KVM dated 28.06.2011
on the file the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently
award the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) at Karivalamvandhanallur,
Tirunelveli District under Schedule Caste Category to the petitioner.

!For Petitioners  ... Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy
^For Respondents  ... Mr.S.Murugadoss for R1
		      Mr.S.Nates Rajaa for R3

The petitioner is an aspirant for getting LPG dealership from Bharat
Petroleum Corporation under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme. When the
publication was advertised in the Dinakaran newspaper, dated 31.03.2010, Madurai
edition seeking for application for LPG dealership, he also made an application
claiming that he is the resident of Karivalamvandanallur Village in
Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. The said village out let was
exclusively for persons belongs to Schedule Caste community. The notification
itself gave certain requirements for making applications. One such requirement
was that the land which has to be shown for the purpose of putting up godown
should be available in the same revenue village.

2. The petitioner made an application giving the particulars of his land
owned by him, which was situated in Kuvalaikanni Panchayat. In the final list of
applications found eligible who were are qualified for short-list of selection
under the Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak scheme in respect of the LPG Out let,
name of the petitioner also finds a place. It was described the selection is for
the Karivalamvandanallur Village under SC category.

3. The petitioner also went for the selection process and marks were
awarded by the Committee comprising of Territory Manager and Territory
Coordinator. He received telegram from the third respondent asking him to
contact the Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Tuticorin.
Since the respondent found that the petitioner’s original land shown in the
application did not come within the revenue village of Karivalamvandanallur
Village, he was informed that there was discrepancy between the original
settlement deed dated 28.04.2010 and the Encumbrance Certificate obtained by the
committee showed that the lands offered were in Karivalamvandanallur situated
in Kuvalaikanni Village. Therefore, it is stated that as per the notification
that the land for construction of godown should be in the advertised location.
In the application he has made a declaration that he was aware that any
information furnished if found to be false or misrepresented, his application
was liable to be cancelled. It was at this stage, the petitioner after getting
the cancellation order dated 28.06.2011, came forward to challenge the said

4. Notice of motion was ordered on 08.07.2011. If the dealership had not
been granted to any other person so far, the respondents are restrained from
granting the dealership till 18.07.2011 and the same was extended from time to
time until 12.10.2011. Thereafter, there was no further extension granted by
this Court.

5. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has filed counter affidavit
dated 29.07.2011. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner in
his application form had stated the he owned suitable land on the advertised
location for the LPG Godown and showroom. But the advertised location was only
Karivalamvandanallur Village and not Kuvalaikanni Village. Therefore, the
petitioner was not eligible to compete for the dealership. It is also stated
that since he had said ‘yes’ in the column showing against query No.9 regarding
to location. Hence, it was a misrepresentation and he was ineligible to

6. The standing counsel for the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., also
filed a typeset showing the list of person who were found eligible in respect of
Karivalamvandanallur Village. The petitioner whose application was originally
considered had secured only 95 marks. Above the petitioner there were two other
candidates who have secured 100% marks.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the
only disqualification was that land was in Kiuvalaikanni Village, and he was
also willing to produce ownership of lands in the same village. For that purpose
he had produced a patta standing in the name of his family under various survey
numbers starting from 2D1 in the said village. He also produced a certificate
given by the Additional Government Pleader, Sankarankovil to show that he has
got a clear title over the said property. Such an exercise cannot be entertained
at this Stage, especially when the qualification eligible for dealership has to
be seen only on the date of notification and not on any subsequent dates.

8. In the present case in the original application form though he had
stated he owned land in Karivalamvandhanallur Village, but on verification it
was found those lands were not situated in the same village. Therefore, the
respondent though included the petitioner’s name in the eligible candidates
list, having found that he was ineligible, had rightly rejected the case of the

9. This Court is not inclined to accept the petitioner’s offer of showing
some other land, since such information was not furnished at the time of
submitting his application form. In the counter affidavit, it was also stated
that there are several other persons who were equally disqualified for the very
same reason. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any special privilege or for
separate treatment in his case alone.

10. Under the said circumstances, there is no case made out by the
petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.



1.The Government of India,
Represented by the Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Petroleum,
New Delhi.

2.The Regional Manager,
Bharath Petroleum Corporation,

3.The Territory Manager LPG
Bharath Petroleum Corporation,
Tuticorin Territory LPG

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information