SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 1811

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS (MADURAI BENCH)
T.S. Sivagnanam, S. Ananthi, JJ.
The Divisional Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Madurai Divisional Office - Appellants
Vs.
M. Arunkumar and Ors. - Respondent
W.A.(MD) No. 1193 of 2020 and C.M.P.(MD). No. 6499 of 2020
Decided On : 19-04-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Muraleedharan
For the Respondents: Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Counsel for H. Thayumanasamy

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for applicants to possess valid registered documents for the specified land as per the eligibility criteria outlined in the brochure.

Headnote:

Land Ownership - Eligibility Criteria - Brochure Clause 4(v) - Unregistered Lease Deed - Validity of Lease Agreement - Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh - [Article 226] - [Brochure Clause 4(v)] - [Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh]

Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioner applied for appointment as a retail outlet dealer, claiming eligibility under Group-I category based on a lease deed. The application was rejected as the lease deed was unregistered and did not meet the eligibility criteria. The court found that the petitioner did not possess any registered documents for the required land at the time of application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's application did not meet the eligibility criteria as per the brochure and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's application was justified.

Issues: Validity of unregistered lease deed, compliance with eligibility criteria, interpretation of brochure clause 4(v)

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Swapnil Singh to determine the validity of the lease agreement and the compliance with eligibility criteria. The court emphasized the requirement for registered documents and the importance of meeting the specified eligibility criteria.

Final Decision: The writ appeal was allowed, the order passed in the writ petition was set aside, and consequently, the writ was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S. Ananthi, J.

1. This appeal by the 2nd respondent, is filed against the order dated 19.08.2020, in W.P.(MD) No. 8032 of 2020 filed by the 1st respondent/petitioner herein.

2. The 1st respondent had filed W.P.(MD) No. 8032 of 2020 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Ref. 15447854825273, dated 17.01.2020 and sought further direction to process forthwith the petitioner's application in Ref. 15447854825273, dated 14.12.2018.

3. The respondents/Corporation issued tender notification dated 25.11.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of retail outlet dealers at various locations in the State of Tamilnadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. The case on hand pertains to the location at Melakrishnaputhoor, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner submitted his application dated 14.12.2018 in response to the said notification. The petitioner wanted his case to be considered under what is known as Group-I category. The respondents conducted a local inspection on 23.12.2019. Thereafter, the impugned order, dated 17.01.2020 was issued and the petitioner was informed that his candidature under Group-I was found ineligible and that he would be considered for selection along with Group-III applicants as per the guidelines. This communication is put to challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the applicant was not in possession of required land as on date of application.

4. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner had contended that his case is to be considered as Group-I category in the brochure. As per Clause 4(v) of the brochure, the applicant would be classified into three groups as mentioned below based on the land offered or land not offered by them to the application form and Group-I applicants having suitable place of land in the advertised location/area either by way of ownership/long term lease for a period of minimum 19 years 11 months or as advertised by the OMC.

5. The land required for the project was 30m/30m. The 1st respondent/writ petitioner had submitted his application, dated 14.12.2018 as in Group-I category along with lease deed dated 10.12.2018 for 20 years. When a lease deed executed for more than 11 months it must be compulsorily registered. But the above deed is not registered. Further, he shown the extent as 48m/30m in the application. He relied only the lease agreement in his application.

6. As per brochure note 1(a), 'Own' means having ownership by way of Registered Sale deed, Registered Gift deed, etc. or title of the property or registered long lease (as per individual OMC norms) in the name of applicant/family member/s as defined in 4(v)-e.

7. The writ petitioner had filed only lease deed along with his application that too unregistered. The appellant had inspected the property on 23.12.2019 and found that the site was not upto the eligibility criteria fixed for the project.

8. Further, the writ petitioner had filed one sale agreement dated 26.11.2018 which was alleged to be prior to application. But, the sale agreement was not annexed with the petitioner's application. The sale agreement also not registered. The same was executed on 15.11.2019 only after filing the application. Therefore, on the date of application, the writ petitioner did not possess the required land under any valid documents.

9. The relevant portion of the Judgment, dated 22.04.2019 in W.A. No. 1277 of 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, is extracted hereunder:

    "..........

13. The respondent is deemed to be fully aware of the terms and conditions. Despite that being the position, while submitting his application in column No. 5, he had given the date of lease deed as 23.04.2018 along with the document number. Column 5 of the application clearly states that the land should be owned or leased for minimum fifteen years. Having submitted the application fully knowing well that the mand

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top