BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ORDER RESERVED ON : 09.01.2026 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR W.P.(MD).No.13763 of 2024 and WMP(MD).Nos.12104, 12106 and 12108 of 2024 T.Jeeva Ramesh ....Petitioner Vs

1.The General Manager Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited South Zone Office Thalamuthu Natarajan Maligai

4^th Floor, Gandhi Irvin Salai Egmore, Chennai – 8

2.The Head of Regional Office HPCL, Madurai Retail RO

1^st Floor, BSNL CMTS Bhavan

70 Feet Road, Ellis Nagar Madurai, Tamil Nadu 625 016 ....Respondents ....Respondents Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order made by the 2^nd respondent dated 17.06.2024 in respect of the petitioner's application in HPC16930555866150 and quash the same as illegal and consequently confirm the candidature of the petitioner for Retail Outlet Dealership for the location ' within 5 km from Kalayarkoil Village on NH85 towards Sivagangai'.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.M.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Sridhar

ORDER

The present writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the order passed by the second respondent on 17.06.2024 wherein the application of the petitioner for award of retail outlet dealership by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is not having minimum frontage as specified in the advertisement.

(A).Factual Matrix:

2.The second respondent herein has issued an advertisement on

28.06.2023 for award of retail outlet in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. As per the said advertisement, only online application should be submitted and no documents or print out of the application should be filed in the office unless requested. The petitioner herein had made an application on 27.08.2023 for the location of 'Within 5 km from Kalayarkoil Village of NH85 towards Sivagangai, Sivagangai District' under open category, the application was scrutinized online.

3.The petitioner being the selected candidate was directed to pay a security deposit of Rs.50,000/- for making field verification of the documents. The petitioner was the only candidate under Group-I category in the advertisement for that location. A perusal of the application reveals that the land that was mentioned in the application belongs to the petitioner's father in Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 with a frontage of 35 meters.

4.On 19.10.2023, a communication was sent to the writ petitioner directing him to submit an affidavit, land documents etc. Accordingly, the petitioner has uploaded the same and it was verified on 09.01.2024. The petitioner has deposited the security deposit of on 29.10.2023. The land evaluation was carried out by the committee on 08.06.2024. The committee found that the land offered by the writ petitioner was having only 29 meters of frontage whereas the required frontage is 35 meters. Therefore, the impugned rejection order was passed on 17.06.2024 and the same is under challenge in the present writ petition.

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

5.According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, his father is the owner of Survey Nos.107/3 and 107/4 at Kollangudi Village, Kalayarkoil Taluk, Sivagangai District and he had obtained an affidavit as per Appendix- III from his father. By mistake, he had not mentioned the Survey No.107/2 for which he had obtained an affidavit from a third party by way of another Appendix-III. If all the three Survey Numbers are put together, the petitioner would be having 35 m. of frontage. By mistake, Survey No.107/2 was not mentioned in the application form. In fact, after the rejection order, he had purchased the same from the third party on 19.07.2024.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner had further submitted that another candidate who had applied under a different category was not able to submit the securi