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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KAAYCEEYEN ENTERPRISES – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP 1052/2011



Advocates:
['M/S K RAJA', '', 'N KOLANDAIVELU', 'M/S O R SANTHANAKRISHNAN', '', 'M/S ANAND', 'ABDUL & VINOTH ASSOCIATES', 'R- DISD VIDE COURT ORDER DT', 'R - THE UNION OF INDIA', 'REP BY ITS SECRETARY', 'MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS', 'SASTHRI BHAVAN', 'NEW DELHI', 'R- THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU', 'FOOD', 'CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT', 'FORT ST GEORGE', 'CHENNAI', 'R- THE COMMISSIONER', 'CHEPAUK', 'CHENNAI']

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.07.2021

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

and

M.P.Nos.1,1,2 & 2 of 2011

Kaayceeyen Enterprises

Rep. by its Partner Mr.K.Natarajan

Carrying on business

at No.72, Illuppur Road,

Kallukudi,

Trichy- 600 020.

.. Petitioner in W.P.No.1052 of 2011

Karumari Amman Kerosene Depot

Rep.by its Proprietor Mr.V.Jayakumar,

Carrying on business

at No.42, Padmanabha Nagar Main Road,

Padmanabha Nagar,

Choolaiedu,

Chennai - 600 094.

.. Petitioner in W.P.No.1053 of 2011

Vs.

1. The Union of India,

Rep. by its Secretary,

Ministry of Petroleum

and Natural gas

Sasthri Bhavan,

New Delhi.

1/5

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

2. The Director (Marketing)

Indian Oil Corporation,

G-9, Ali Yuavar Jung Marg,

Bandara East, Mumbai - 400 051.

3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,

17, Jamshed Ji Tatta Road,

Mumbai - 400 020.

4. Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Scope Complex, New Delhi - 110 003.

5. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,

rep by its Chairman & Managing Director,

Bharat bavan, No.4 & 6, currim bhoy road,

Ballard estate, P.B.No.688,

Mumbai - 1.

6. The Government of Tamil Nadu,

rep by its Secretary, Food, Civil,

Supplies & Consumer

Protection Department,

Fort. St. George,

Chennai - 600 009.

7. The Commissioner for

Civil Supplies, Chepauk,

Chennai - 600 005.

.. Respondents in both WPs.

Prayer in W.P.No.1052 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the impugned advertisement published in the Hindu

Newspaper dated 15.06.2010 by the 2nd to 5th respondents for

2/5

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

appointment of LPG distributors in Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and

quash the same and consequently direct the 1st to 5th respondents herein to

allot LPG distributorship in Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District or in any

location in Tamil Nadu to the petitioner.

Prayer in W.P.No.1053 of 2011: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified

Mandamus calling for the impugned advertisement published in the Hindu

Newspaper dated 15.06.2010 by the 2nd to 5th respondents for appointment

of LPG distributors in Vyasarpadi, Chennai District and quash the same and

consequently direct the 1st to 5th respondents herein to allot LPG

distributorship in Vyasarpadi, Chennai District or in any location in Tamil

Nadu to the petitioner.

For petitioners in both WPs. : Mr.K.Raja

For Respondent No.2 : Mr.A.A.V.Partners

For Respondent Nos.3 & 5 : Mr.O.R.Karthikeyan

For Respondent No.4

: Died

For Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : Mr.Krishnaraja

Government Advocate

COMMON ORDER

The petitioners have come forward with these writ petitions for

issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the advertisement

published in the Hindu Newspaper dated 15.06.2010 by the 2nd to 5th

respondents, quash the same and for consequential direction.

3/5

http://www.judis.nic.in

W.P.Nos.1052 & 1053 of 2011

2.Today, when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration, the

learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly submitted that the issue

involved herein is no longer res integra. Earlier, this Court by order dated

30.6.2016 in W.P.Nos.35322 to 35326 of 2013, 9056 & 9057 of

2014,3121 & 29110 of 2015 and W.P.(MD) Nos.17218 to 17223 of 2013

in the case of (Sri Ram Agencies, HPCL Dealer, represented by its

Proprietor S.Gajendran Vs. Union of India, represented by its Secretary,

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and others ) has dismissed those

writ petitions which was af

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top