The main legal point established in the judgment is that the approval of property for storage of petroleum products was granted in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations, and the objections raised were not sufficient to warrant interference with the approval.

1. The issue involved in both these Writ Petitions concerns the approval of a property for storage of 'A' & 'B' class petroleum products of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the respondent Corporation).

2. In W.P.No.27238 of 2014, the petitioner is one Mr.K.Anand and seeks for a direction to the Territory Manager of the respondent Corporation to dispose of his representation dated 09.09.2014. In the said representation, the petitioner has requested the second respondent to withdraw the Letter of Intent issued in favour of G.Sivakumar and award the retail outlet dealership to the petitioner. An application was made under Rule 144(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for grant of No Objection Certificate in favour of the respondent Corporation for storage of Petroleum products in the property leased to G.Sivakumar. This application was considered and the District Revenue Officer-cum-Additional District Magistrate, Tiruppur District, the first respondent herein granted approval vide proceedings dated 24.12.2014. This proceedings is put to challenge by one Mr.P.S.Palanisamy in W.P.No.376 of 2015. The grounds of challenge are that the first respondent failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rule 103 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 and failed to adhere to the directions issued in W.P.No.6886 of 2013, dated 06.08.2013. Further, it is submitted that the owner of the property namely N.Sivasakthi, the second respondent had no authority to lease out the common land in which the Writ Petitioner Palanisamy, is said to be entitled to the share, which is used as drain from his land. Thus, it is seen that Palanisamy is not a person who applied for the retail dealership, but he appears to be the adjacent land owner, where the out let is proposed to be located. Therefore, his objection is with regard to the rights, the land owner, the second respondent, and that the second respondent cannot lease out the entire property including the drain portion to the third respondent for the purpose of establishing the outlet. Therefore, W.P.No.376 of 2015 has to be taken up for consideration first and the result of the other Writ Petition will depend upon this Writ Petition.

3. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions are that the respondent Corporation called for applications for appointment of retail outlet dealers by advertisement, dated 15.09.2011/ 16.09.2011. One of the sites which was advertised, was Muthur in serial No.282 of the advertisement. There were totally 10 applicants, out of which 9 were found eligible. In the interview conducted on 18.01.2012, all the 9 applicants were found to be eligible to be considered for empanelment. The Dealer Selection Committee of empanelled the candidates in the order of merit. The third respondent G.Sivakumar stood first in the merit list followed by Mr.K.Anand, the petitioner in W.P.No.27238 of 2014, and the third was one Mr.K.Kuppudurai, the marks secured by all three of them are 94.00, 92.86 and 92.43 respectively. The petitioner K.Anand lodged a complaint to the respondent Corporation stating that the land offered by the third respondent, who has empanelled as the first candidate in the merit list belongs to N.Sivasakthi, the second respondent. It was stated that the lessor acquired title to the property pursuant to a judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 2007, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Avinashi, which decree was registered as document No.3140 of 2010, on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Avinashi. It was stated in the complaint that the schedule of the property in the lease deed, dated 11.10.2011, executed by the second respondent in favour of the third respondent does not tally with the schedule of property as per the decree registered as document No.3140 of 2010. Therefore, the Corporation was requested to cancel the empanelment of G.Sivakumar and select the petitioner K.Anand as a dealer, as he stood second in the merit lis