Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 549
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
J. Thulasidasan - Appellant
Versus
The Government of India, Represented by the Principal Secretary, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.A.(MD)No. 1276 of 2015 & M.P(MD)Nos. 2 & 3 of 2015
Decided On : 27-02-2018
For the Appellant :M. Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for K. Appadurai, Advocate.
For the Respondents:M. Sridhar, R4, M. Saravanan, R. Subramanian, Advocates.
Fulfillment of essential conditions and criteria for LPG dealership application is crucial for consideration, as outlined in the relevant clauses of the Brochure for Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributors.
Headnote:
LPG Dealership Rejection - Land Ownership - Clauses 6(f), 6(h), 10, 14 - The court discussed the rejection of the appellant's LPG dealership application based on land ownership criteria and field verification. The court found that the appellant failed to fulfill the essential conditions and criteria, leading to the rejection of his candidature. The court also highlighted the definitions and requirements under Clauses 6(f), 6(h), 10, and 14 of the Brochure for Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributors.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the rejection of his LPG Dealership application based on land ownership criteria and field verification. The court found that the appellant failed to fulfill the essential conditions and criteria, leading to the rejection of his candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the appellant's LPG dealership application was justified as he failed to fulfill the essential conditions and criteria, and there was no merit in the writ appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the appellant's LPG dealership application, the fulfillment of land ownership criteria, and the field verification process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellant's failure to fulfill the essential conditions and criteria for LPG dealership, as outlined in the Brochure for Selection of Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Distributors.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.
1. The appellant is the writ petitioner and he made a challenge to the letter/order dated 25.02.2014, passed by the second respondent, in and by which, his application for award of LPG Dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV), came to be rejected.
2. The writ petition, after contest, came to be dismissed on merits on 30.09.2015 and challenging the same, the present writ appeal is filed.
3. The appellant/writ petitioner submitted an application for selection and award of LPG Dealership under RGGLV and he was issued with a call letter dated 04.11.2013 by the second respondent informing him that he was qualified for draw for selection of RGGLV and was required to be present on 18.11.2013 at 09.30 a.m. The appellant/writ petitioner was present in person on that day and the second respondent, vide communication, dated 18.11.2013, informed him that he was the successful candidate and was advised to remit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) being 10% of the Security Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) within three working days from the date of receipt of the said letter and the appellant/writ petitioner has also complied with the same. An official attached to the respondent Corporation had done a Field Verification on 09.01.2014 and according to the appellant/writ petitioner, he was satisfied with the documents. The appellant/writ petitioner was awaiting for the award of LPG Dealership and to his shock and surprise, the second respondent has sent the impugned communication dated 25.02.2014, which was received by him on 03.03.2014, rejecting his candidature by citing two grounds and by making a challenge to the same, the said writ petition was filed and it was entertained and notices were ordered.
4. The second respondent has filed the counter affidavit stating, among other things, that as per the Brochure, the applicants must submit all their credentials as on the last date of submission of the application on 05.07.2013 and the appellant/writ petitioner failed to do so. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner has requested to take into consideration the land comprised in S.No.2353/2 on the ground that it belongs to his father and he is an undivided family member. It is the stand of the second respondent that the said document came into being after the last date for submission of the application and prayed for the dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The learned Judge, upon hearing the rival submissions and consideration of the materials placed on record and also taking into consideration the decisions in V.Chandran v. Oil Selection Board, Madras reported in (1995) 2 MLJ 458; K.Vinod Kumar v. S.Palanisamy and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 3171; K.Indira v. Union of India reported in (2006) 3 MLJ 492 and R.Sathiyan v. Senior Area Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [W.P(MD)No.7433 of 2009, decided on 12.08.2009] as well as an yet another decision in G.Bibin Gnanakumar v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., found that the Brochure and other materials placed on record would make it clear that the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner was rejected by the respondent Corporation only based on the reasons indicated in the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 25.02.2014 and at no point of time, the appellant/writ petitioner has alleged mala fides. The learned Judge further observed that the appellant/writ petitioner has failed to prove his claim, especially, on the ground of mala fides, arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the selection process on the part of the respondent Corporation and citing the said reasons, dismissed the said writ petition, vide impugned order dated 30.09.2015 and hence, this writ appeal.
6. Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner would submit that the impugned communication of the second respondent dated 25.02.2014 cites two reasons, i.e., (a) On field verification, the approa
