{"id":113107,"date":"2011-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011"},"modified":"2015-04-22T14:24:31","modified_gmt":"2015-04-22T08:54:31","slug":"s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011","title":{"rendered":"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 25\/03\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.14683 of 2010\n\nS.Maheswari\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,\n  Rep. By its General Manager,\n  South Zone, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,\n  4th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Road,\n  Egmore,\n  Chennai-600 008.\n\n2.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,\n  Madurai Retail Regional Office,\n  Rakesh Towers, Plot No.5,\n  S.S.Colony 5th Street,\n  Bye Pass Road, Madurai.\n\n3.A.Muthuramalingam\n  (R-3 impleaded as respondent vide order\n  made in M.P.No.1 of 2011, dated 28.02.2011)\n\t\t\t \t\t...     Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the\nrecords pertaining to the impugned notification published by the respondents\nCorporation in \"The Hindu\", dated 20.06.2010 insofar as Sl.No.211 in Mallipudur\nVillage on the State Highways 42 alone and quash the same and consequently\ndirect the respondents to re-issue the notification for Malli village in\naccordance with the rules of appointment for dealership of retail outlet in\nMalli village and allow the petitioner to participate in the said selection\nprocess in accordance with the rules.\n\n!For Petitioner\t          ... Mr.Veera.Kathiravan\n^For Respondents 1 and 2  ... Mr.M.Sridher\nFor 3rd Respondent        ... Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe prayer in the writ petition is to quash the  notification published by
\nthe respondents Corporation in “The Hindu”, dated 20.06.2010 insofar as
\nSl.No.211 in Mallipudur Village on the State Highways 42 alone and consequently
\nto direct the respondents to re-issue the notification for Malli village for
\nappointment of dealership of retail outlet in Malli village and to allow the
\npetitioner to participate in the said selection process in accordance with the
\nrules.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.The petitioner would contend that she is eligible candidate for
\nparticipating in the retail outlet of petroleum and petroleum products.
\nAccording to her, the first respondent called for applications for appointment
\nof dealer for retail outlet for petroleum products of the respondent Corporation
\nin various places. In the said notification, Sl.No.211 is for the dealer at
\nMallipudur village on the State Highways-42 which is allotted for the open
\ncategory.  According to her, Mallipudur is a new village and the village is
\ncalled Malli village and both the villages are one and the same village as per
\nthe revenue records. She would also contend that one of the conditions in the
\nnotification in Sl.No.211 is that the proposed site must be abutting the State
\nHighways 42. She would further contend that the State Highways 42 is crossing
\nonly Malli village and not Mallipudur village. Therefore, she would contend that
\nin the notification it should have been only stated that it is to be situated in
\nthe State Highways 42 only the Malli village and not Mallipudur and according to
\nher, Malli is far away from the State Highways 42. Therefore, the entire
\nnotification was issued on a misconstrued fact of the geographical area. The
\nState Highways 42, is only crossing Malli village and if a proper notification
\nis issued, the petitioner would also be eligible as she is residing at Malli
\nvillage. Since in the notification Mallipudur village was wrongly mentioned
\ninstead of Malli village and therefore, she could not file an application for
\nthe dealership. According to her, had the Malli village been mentioned in the
\nnotification, she would have applied and hence, she challenges the notification
\nitself for the grant of dealership.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.The second respondent filed a counter affidavit  stating that the writ
\npetition will not lie since as per the notification for the distributorship for
\nthe item in Sl.No.211 one of the requirements is that the land should be
\nsituated abutting the State Highways 42. They would specifically state that the
\nMalli village is not situated in State Highways 42. In fact, the Tahsildar had
\nissued communication, dated 02.09.2010 as Mallipudur village lies in State
\nHighways 42 and notice was issued after due verification. It is further
\nsubmitted by the second respondent that the submission of  the petitioner that
\nif the notification was published as contended by the petitioner, she would have
\napplied, is not sustainable in law since she has not even applied, she has no
\nright to file this writ petition. It is further stated that a rival dealer one
\nTamilarasi filed a writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.11966 of 2010 challenging the
\nnotification on the ground that her outlet is close to the proposed retail
\noutlet and the same will affect her business. This Court by order dated
\n09.11.2010 dismissed the writ petition. According to the second respondent,
\ninterview for the location at S.No.211 on SH 42 was completed and the first
\nempanelled candidate namely, A.Muthuramalingam was also issued a letter of
\nintent on 24.11.2010 and he has also completed the formalities of signing the
\ndocuments with the oil company and therefore, the interim order passed by this
\ncourt would cause great hardship and loss to them.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.The successful bidder filed an application to implead himself and
\nsubsequently, he is impleaded as third respondent in the writ petition.
\nAccording to him, he was also a resident of Malli village and his land situated
\nin SH.42 and the petitioner herein has even not filed any application, she has
\nno locus standi to file this writ petition and she is the person set up by the
\nsaid Tamilarasi who is the rival dealer running petroleum outlet by another
\nCorporation which has already been dismissed and the said Tamilarasi is none
\nother than the petitioner’s brother’s wife.  The  Malli  village is a hamlet
\nsituated within the revenue jurisdiction of Malli village group and they have a
\nroad under the control of District Administration leading to Mallipudhur village
\nis starting from the said SH-42 at a point called  Mallipudur Road. The
\nnotification in Sl.No.211 issued by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited
\nalso clearly mentioned Mallipudhur on SH-42 (SH-42 kPJ ky;ypg[Jhh;).  Therefore,
\nthis is nothing but a business rivalry, the present writ petition has been filed
\nby the petitioner on behalf of the said Tamilarasi who has already lost her
\nright to prolong the issue as long as possible. According to him, he has
\nobtained no objection certificate from various authorities and submitted the
\nsame to the respondent Corporation. Therefore, the writ petition is not
\nmaintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties
\nand perused the materials available on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.The only point which has been raised by the writ petitioner is that
\nsince she belongs to Malli village, she is entitled to participate in the
\nselection process for the petroleum products. She has challenged the
\nnotification only on the ground that in the notification specifically mentioned
\nin S.No.211 as State Highways 42 on Mallipudur village whereas the State
\nHighways 42 does not pass through the Mallipudur village and it is only Malli
\nvillage. Therefore, the notice is wrong had the notification specifically
\nmentioned the Malli village, she would have participated. Therefore, the
\nnotification itself is wrong and consequently, the allotment itself is bad. In
\nthis connection, it is pertinent to refer the paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed
\nin support of the writ petition wherein she herself categorically admitted that
\n“the said Mallipudur is the new village and the old village is called Malli
\nvillage and both Malli village and Mallipudur village are belonging to the same
\nvillage as per the revenue records”.  Therefore, the admission of the petitioner
\nis very clear that Malli and Mallipudur villages are only belonging to the same
\nhamlet.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.Pending this writ petition, this Court sought for  report from the
\nRevenue Divisional Officer to find out whether S.H.42 is crossing Mallipudur
\nVillage or Malli village. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the Revenue
\nDivisional Officer in his proceedings in Roc.A3\/1027\/11, dated 01.03.2011
\naddressed to the Additional Government Pleader has categorically stated that as
\nper revenue records,  Malli is one of the revenue village in Srivilliputhur
\nTaluk. Mallipudur is not a revenue village. Mallipudur is one of the hamlet of
\nMalli Revenue village. Malli Panchayat and Mallipudur Panchayat lies in Malli
\nrevenue village. SH.42 is crossing over Malli and Mallipudur villages.\n<\/p>\n
\t8.The grievance of the petitioner is that had Malli village is mentioned
\nin the notification, she would have participated. But it is specifically
\nmentioned SH.42. As per the report, S.H.42 is crossing both the villages as per
\nthe notification the property is to be situated in S.H.42. The third respondent
\nwho is the successful bidder, he has also produced a lease deed copy in his
\nfavour in respect of the land to be allotted for the retail outlet.  In the
\ndocument, the property is situated in  Malli village in S.No.27\/1, the
\nboundaries of the property, it is clearly stated Malli and Mallipudur villages
\nin S.H.42 main road. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner does not
\nstand to scrutiny at all. The fourth respondent land is situated abutting S.H.42
\nby which he is eligible to participate. Therefore, the grievance of the
\npetitioner as Mallipudur village alone has been mentioned, she could not
\nparticipate does not stand to scrutiny at all.  It is now brought to the notice
\nof this Court by the Corporation as well as the third respondent that
\nW.P.(MD)No.11996\/2010 was filed by one Tamilarasi who is running another petrol
\nbunk which was granted by the another corporation petrol outlet on the ground
\nthat if the present bunk is established her business would be affected. The said
\nwrit petition was dismissed by this Court and the petitioner who is none other
\nthan the petitioner’s brother wife and only at her instigation, the present writ
\npetition has been filed.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.Further, it is very clearly established that the    hamlet situated in
\nthe revenue jurisdiction of Malli village group and in the notification itself
\nis clearly stated that Mallipudur on S.H.42. Therefore, the petitioner now
\ncannot apply the word Malli and Mallipudur and seek for cancellation especially
\nwhen the third respondent has been found eligible in all perspectives and an
\norder has been granted in favour of him. In this connection, there is no merits
\nin the writ petition at all as she has not even applied\/participated, she cannot
\nchallenge the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t10.Insofar as it relates to the challenge to the allotment of petroleum
\nproducts, there is also an appeal provision as per the Division Bench decision
\nof this Court  and I have followed the said decision in E.Joshua Livingston
\nVs.The Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation, Trichy
\nDivisional Office and others made in W.P.No.27344 of 2009, dated 02.03.2011.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.In the decision of this Court reported in (K. Indira vs. Union of
\nIndia,<\/a> rep. By its Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi
\nand others) (2006) 3 M.L.J. 492 this Court held that judicial review is
\npermitted only on the established grounds of malafide, arbitrariness or
\nunreasonableness.  It was also held in that judgment that the Board, which is
\nvested with the functions of selection, is an independent entity consisting of
\nretired Judges and retired Civil Servants possessing necessary expertise and
\nexperience to perform them and therefore, there is minimal scope for alleging
\nmalafide against such a body.  In this case, admittedly, the petitioner has not
\nalleged malafide in the awarding of marks by the corporation in favour of the
\nthird respondent herein and therefore, the decision of the corporation to award
\nmarks in favour of the third respondent need not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
 \t12.In the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.
\n6798 of 2002 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4705 of 2003) dated 28.08.2003 between
\n(K.Vinod Kumar vs. S. Palanisamy and others<\/a>) it was held in para-14 as follows:-
\n \t“The law is settled that over proceedings and decisions taken in
\nadministrative matters, the scope of judicial review is confined to the decision
\nmaking process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken.  No
\ninfirmity is pointed out in the proceedings of the selection Board which may
\nhave the effect of vitiating the selection process.  The capability of the
\nappellant herein to otherwise perform as an LPG distributor is not in dispute.
\nThe High Court was not, therefore, justified in interfering with the decision of
\nthe Selection Board and the decision of the BPCL to issue letter of allotment to
\nthe appellant herein.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t13.In the four Judges bench of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
\n(Haryana Financial Corporation and another vs. M\/s. Jagdamba Oil Mill and
\nanother) (2002) 1 CTC 503, in para-14, it was held as follows:-
\n \t“14.The fairness required of the Corporations cannot be carried to the
\nextent of enabling them from recovering what is due to them.  The matter can be
\nlooked at from another angle.  The corporation is an independent autonomous
\nstatutory body having its own constitution and rules to abide by, and functions
\nand obligations to discharge.  As such in the discharge of its functions, it is
\nfree to act according to its own light. The view it forms and decisions it takes
\nare on the basis of the information in its possession and the advice it receives
\nand according to its own perspective and calculations.  Unless its action is
\nmala fide, even a wrong decision by it is not open to challenge.  It is not for
\nthe Courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, more prudent,
\ncommercial or businesslike it may, for the decision of the Corporation.  As was
\nobserved by this Court in U.P. Financial Corporation and others vs. Naini Oxygen
\nand Acetylene Gas Limited and<\/a> another 1995 (2) SCC 754, commercial matters the
\nCourts should not risk their judgments for the judgments of the bodies to whom
\nthat task is assigned…….\n<\/p>\n
\t14.Useful reference could be made to a decision of this Court made in W.P.
\nNo. 11021 of 2010 dated 20.07.2010 in respect of the award of distributorship by
\nthe Indian Oil Corporation Limited wherein this Court held that in writ
\njurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot
\nsit in appeal over the selection of a candidate made by the corporation for
\ngrant of award of retail outlet.   If the selection process is vitiated by
\narbitrary or irrational exercise of power or by malafide or based on no material
\nerror or by ignoring relevant factors including eligibility, the writ Court, on
\nproof of such relevant facts, may grant the appropriate relief.  However, it is
\nnot for the writ Court to dwell deep into the records of the corporation and
\nexamine the validity of rival claims upon appreciation afresh of the materials
\non such record and on the basis of such re appraisal to decide whether the
\nselection was properly made and to give effect to such decision by the issue of
\na writ.  In para-18, it was held as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t“18. \tIn the case on hand, the Distributor selection committee\/authority,
\nwhich is vested with the function of selection of dealers, is an independent
\nentity. The said committee, after considering the materials on record and the
\npersonal assessment on merits, business ability, capacity etc., of the
\napplicants, has selected third respondent for grant of distributorship and
\nissued the Letter of Indent dated 05.04.2010, following the disqualification of
\nthe petitioner.  The process of appreciating and weighing various factors,
\nmaterials and rival merits is the function of the Distributor Selection
\nCommittee, which is having necessary expertise to perform its duties properly.
\nTherefore, in my view, there cannot be any re-appreciation or re-appraisal of
\nrelevant material factors, relative qualifications and evaluation of the
\ncomparative merits of the candidates in a writ proceedings under Article 226 of
\nThe Constitution of India.  As such, the proceedings of the first respondent,
\nimpugned herein, cannot be faulted with.”\n<\/p>\n
 \t15.The petitioner has not even applied, if at all, she is aggrieved, she
\ncould have availed this opportunity. But in this case, she has not even applied
\nwithout even application, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. Hence,
\nthe writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
\npetitions are closed.\n<\/p>\n
sms\t<\/p>\n
To\n<\/p>\n
1.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
\n  Rep. By its General Manager,
\n  South Zone, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
\n  4th Floor, Gandhi Irwin Road,
\n  Egmore,
\n  Chennai-600 008.\n<\/p>\n
2.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
\n  Madurai Retail Regional Office,
\n  Rakesh Towers, Plot No.5,
\n  S.S.Colony 5th Street,
\n  Bye Pass Road, Madurai.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25\/03\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN Writ Petition (MD)No.14683 of 2010 S.Maheswari … Petitioner Vs. 1.The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Rep. By its General Manager, South Zone, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, 4th Floor, Gandhi […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-113107","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nS.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-04-22T08:54:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T08:54:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2512,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\",\"name\":\"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-04-22T08:54:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-04-22T08:54:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011","datePublished":"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T08:54:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011"},"wordCount":2512,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011","name":"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum ... on 25 March, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-04-22T08:54:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-maheswari-vs-the-hindustan-petroleum-on-25-march-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S.Maheswari vs The Hindustan Petroleum … on 25 March, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113107","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113107"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113107\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113107"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113107"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113107"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}