The court held that a retailer's eligibility requirements must align with government guidelines, declaring a 35-meter frontage requirement illegal and invalidating the selection based on this non-compliance.

ORDER :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of declaration to declare the selection of the second respondent as a dealer for the retail outlet as illegal and for further declaration that the prescription of 35 meters frontage for awarding a retail outlet which is a urban outlet as illegal and contrary to Indian Road Congress Guidelines. The petitioner has further sought for a declaration that the selection of the second respondent is bad in the eye of law and direct the first respondent to award the petitioner, the dealership of the said outlet.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The first respondent Oil Company had issued an advertisement calling for applications from eligible candidates for awarding dealership of retail outlets of petroleum for various places including the location at Thirukarungudi, Tirunelveli District by an advertisement dated 25.06.2023. As per the said advertisement, the outlet at Thirukarungudi was declared as a regular retail outlet. The advertisement further mentioned that the applicant should possess a land having minimum dimension of 35 meter frontage and 35 meter depth with total area of 1225 sq.m. The petitioner herein had applied for the same on 08.11.2023 under open category and under Group-I category. There were only two applications for the said site. One by the petitioner and other by the second respondent under Group-II category.

3.On being found eligible on the basis of the information provided in the application, the Land Evaluation Committee had visited the site on 02.12.2023 and measured the land offered by the writ petitioner in his presence. The committee had recorded that the petitioner was possessing only 34.6 meters of frontage. The impugned order came to be passed on 13.12.2023 to the effect that the Land Evaluation Committee has found that the land is not meeting the required norms of minimum frontage as per advertisement and therefore, the petitioner's candidature was found to be ineligible. Initially this order was put to challenge. Later, the prayer was amended by incorporating a prayer for a declaration that the prescription of 35 meters frontage for awarding a retail outlet in the urban area is illegal and contrary to the Indian Road Congress Guidelines. A further declaration was sought for to declare the selection of the second respondent as illegal. These amendments were allowed by this Court on 04.12.2025 in WMP(MD).No. 1893 of 2024.

4.When the petitioner has chosen to challenge the notification issued by the first respondent corporation, the entire burden would be upon the writ petitioner to establish whether the notification is in violation of the Indian Road Congress Guidelines or any other statutory provisions or Government Orders.

(B).Submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side:

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the site located at Thirukarungudi is on State Highways, namely SH177. However, the said town is classified as a town Panchayat and it is an urban local body. When the writ petition was filed with such an averment that it is an urban local body and therefore, the frontage that is required only 20x20 meters, the same has not been disputed in the counter filed by the respondent Corporation. Therefore, it should be found that the subject matter retail outlet is located only in a urban are