← Library
Madras High CourtWP/18260/2013dismissed

B.Jamsheer v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,

2020-08-17Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.08.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA W.P.No.18260 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 (Heard through VC) B.Jamsheer ... Petitioner -vs1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Executive Director(LPG), Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai

2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, No.1, Ranganathan Gardens, Off. 11th Main Road, Post Box No.1212 and 1213, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep by its Managing Director, LPG-South Zone, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Post Box No.3045, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai - 600 008

...Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notification published by the respondents Corporation in Tamil daily "The Daily Thanthi" dated 29.05.2013 inviting application for dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) and quash the same as it is against the reservation policy given in the guidelines/brochure for selection for dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) issued on April 2013 and consequently direct the respondents to re-issue the notification in accordance with the guidelines/brochure for selection for dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) issued on April 2013. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sathiskumar -No Appearance For Respondents: Mr.V.Anantha Natarajan

ORDER

The writ petition is filed challenging the notification published by the respondent-Corporation in Tamil daily "The Daily Thanthi" dated 29.05.2013 inviting application for dealership under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin LPG Vitrak (RGGLV) as it is against the reservation policy given in the guidelines/brochure for selection for dealership under the above scheme.

2.

There is no representation for the petitioner for the third consecutive hearing.

3.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondentCorporation would submit that the notification itself is of the year 2013, which challenged only the reservation policy. 4.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that, as there was no interim order, dealership have already been finalised. The same is recorded. 5.

As there is also no representation for the petitioner and as there is nothing further to adjudicate in this matter, this Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS ) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar Asr/srn To

1. The Executive Director(LPG), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhavan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 2.The Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, No.1, Ranganathan Gardens, Off. 11th Main Road, Post Box No.1212 and 1213, Anna Nagar, Chennai - 600 040.

3. The Managing Director, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, LPG-South Zone, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Post Box No.3045, No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai - 600 008 W.P.No.18260 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013 SSV(CO) GMY(24/09/2020)